Nothing Gringo Day

I heard that some people in Mexico are planning to boycott American goods. This will coincide with May 1 when immigrants are not supposed to show up for work. How do you say stupid in Spanish? And what is the telephone number for immigration?

I believe in welcoming useful immigrants, but let's not push the welcome. The biggest minority group in the U.S. is German. According to census figures, 58 million Americans claim German ancestry. Maybe they should not come to work on May 1.

Re deciding who is essential, you probably heard the story about the parts of the body arguing about which was most important. The brain said it was most important because it made the decisions. "But," the mouth said, "without the mouth the brain would starve". "But" said the hands, "without the hands no food could come ito the mouth." The eyes said, "without the eyes you could not find the food". You get the picture.

Finally the A-hole just stopped working and the whole body died. The moral is the A-hole always in the key.


Posted by Jack at April 26, 2006 10:58 PM
Comments
Comment #143401

I think Jack is becoming incoherent in his desperation to shill for the GOP.

Exactly, what are you implying? That Mexican Immigrants are actually contributing usefully or that they are only usefull as the orifice for human excrement?

Either the Latinos are leeches or they are not. You can’t have it both ways, Jack.

Make up your mind.

Posted by: Aldous at April 26, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #143406

hahaahahaa good post jack

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 26, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #143409

Jack,
Perhaps you can help me integrate this issue of immigration with another issue. It seems thousands of illegal immigrants are entering the US on a regular basis, and an enormous number now live here.

Meanwhile, the US is engaged in a War on Terror. Yet not one terrorist attack has been launched within the US; this, despite porous borders.

We’re in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a threat. Yet he is still alive, his Baathists are fighting an insurgency, large sums of money fund the fighting, and yet, and yet; despite all this, not one Iraqi has ever launched an attack here in the US.

The Bush administration continually rattles sabres about the threat Iran presents to the US. In spite of the unsecured borders, no Iranian has ever launched an attack in the US.

Please explain. We’re spending as much money on Defense as the rest of the world combined, yet people seem to be entering the US at will, and none- none launch attacks against American citizens.

Was 9/11 a fluke? Why are we spending so much on defense, and invading other countries, and threatening to attack other countries? It seems like a simple thing for others to attack us, yet none do.

Please explain. I just can’t wrap my
Cheney-esque arms around the subject.

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #143410

phx8:

You forgot to add that ALL of the 9/11 Hijackers were here legally.

Posted by: Aldous at April 27, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #143425

Jack, this simple logic. We have an illegal immigration problem. In order to stop it, first a barrier must be in place to halt the flow except through check points. Second, some decision must be made about the illegals who are already here. Something along the lines of a) those in our jails or prisons are deported, ASAP, AFTER THE BARRIER IS ERECTED. b) Those without gainful employment or means are deported ASAP AFTER THE BARRIER IS ERECTED. Those who have jobs or are supported by citizen family members here are given steps and milestones to achieve in order to remain. Failing those steps or milestones, job, learn English, pass a physical exam, they are deported ASAP AFTER THE BARRIER IS ERECTED.

You see none of the secondary steps make one whit of sense until AFTER THE BARRIER IS ERECTED. Because without the barrier they will just return compounding the problem.

Now as for May 1, I say let them have their demonstration in a cordoned area entered through checkpoints where those with a U.S. birth certificate, valid driver’s license and paycheck stub, or citizen papers may enter to demonstrate exercising their Constitutional rights to assembly and speech. But, those failing to produce that paperwork are denied access and if they raise a fuss, arrest them and have them checked for legal status.

The idea of foreign nationals who broke our laws to get here, trying to shut down our businesses and schools to blackmail us into giving them what they want, is preposterous and would not be tolerated by Americans in any other country on the face of the earth. Illegal immigrants have no citizen rights and while they do have human rights, they are not entitled to interfere with citizens in this country going about their daily lives.

This is going to become violent if the authorities do not nip this illegal alien demonstration thing in the bud. That is a simple truth, regardless of whether it should, or should not be the case.

Enforcing our laws and protecting our borders are the first and foremost responsibility of the Executive Branch of government. If Bush and Gonzalez and Cheney really want to keep their numbers from slipping further, they will enforce our laws while preserving human rights. End of discussion.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 1:50 AM
Comment #143428

Not that anyone cares for my internationalist views, but I have to reiterate my common point of the fact that immigration is a problem that is regional in nature and any single nation is ill-equipped to solve it. It is not an “American” problem, believe it or not both Mexico and Canada have problems with illegal immigration as well, specifically Mexico from its southern neighbors. Either we want an international market or we don’t. We have pursued internationalism (in economic terms) for the last 2/3 of a century now and rabidly for the last 15 years, the free flow of people is essential for regional economies to function. The problem is not how to keep people out, its how do we form a new regional organization to manage the free flow of people in an organized manner. Any other efforts are simply Recidivist or Sisyphean in nature, either way, undesirable.

-Xander

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 27, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #143435

Everyone knows you cannot gather up 11 million people and send them home at one time. They did not come here at one time so no one minds if we send them back a few at a time.

Everyone knows that it would break up families to send some home so we can send the whole family home together to Mexico.

Everyone knows they want to protest and demand equal rights so go home and demand away.

They call US citizens racist but say nothing of what Mexico is doing on their southern borders.

Go home and clean your own house. If your so proud of your country then go live there. Just go.

Posted by: lm at April 27, 2006 2:44 AM
Comment #143436

Im,
Ah nationalist rally. Has always worked well throughout history (I seem to remember Adolf, Franco, and Stalin used it to much great success). Its funny that all of our foreign policy makers know that we are too integrated with a regional economy to pull isolationist crap, but the average public hasn’t even gotten a clue yet. Oh well. I’m a hardcore republican, but I’ve never understood the attractiveness of nationalist fever. Its so last century. Oh well, back to the ivory tower.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 27, 2006 2:49 AM
Comment #143438

No one said anything about legal immigration. Illegal immigration and criminals demanding amnesty when laws are in place to accomodate them LEGALLY makes no sense. Just a thought, what is your international view when rapist, murders, and the like demand amnesty? Everyone knows you cannot gather up all the criminals at one time and lock them up. Everyone knows you do in fact gather them up when you find them and lock them up. The Journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Let this first step of an 11 million mile journey begin with one ILLEGAL alien deported with the whole family to the county of orgin.

Then they can apply for entry in a legal and orderly manner.

Posted by: lm at April 27, 2006 3:07 AM
Comment #143439

Indeed. We must have a wall.

Still… it would be interesting to see the effects the May 1 Demonstration will have. Will we see David R. Remer working to clean plates? Will the Great White Man grit his teeth and wait the next day to have his garden mowed and crops picked?

The suspense is great.

Posted by: Aldous at April 27, 2006 3:08 AM
Comment #143440

Maybe they will cause some problems if they don’t show up to work. David Remer will still be the boss and he can always replace the help. More worry for David is will he still have a business if laws that are in place now shut down his business for his dish washers. Maybe he could afford to buy top of the line dishwashers that sterlize the plates and don’t walk out to demand things they are not intitled to.

America will soon have a surplus of baby boomers wanting to retire early so they might just supplement their retirement with your jobs you walk out on.

In Texas the walk out will probably be equal to black friday after thanksgiving. what with no one spending federal dollars on their lonestar card, shoplifting down to nothing, and remember people will still shop better without all the hastle of waiting in line while someone counts the change.

Posted by: lm at April 27, 2006 3:19 AM
Comment #143443

“I think Jack is becoming incoherent in his desperation to shill for the GOP” Al, I don’t visit this blog often, but there is only one consistent party line shill I see here when I do, and you are he.
You and those of you who yip about “jobs we won’t do…” exactly what are these jobs? I have mowed lawns, done dishes, line cook, paperboy, and most sadly, I made boxes for 8 years before landing the job I have now.
It is either simple arrogance or the desire for a permanent underclass that drives both sides of the bogus left-right to crow on about “jobs Americans won’t do” or the boogeyman named the 7-dollar head of lettuce.
I for one will be paying close attention to those stores who do shut down on May Day(the choice of day coinciding with the old USSR’s celebration which involved marching ICBMs down the road is interesting, to say the least.) I will not only do extra shopping on May Day, but will boycott everyone who chooses to shut down on that day. Hell, I may even take a vacation day to do so.
What people seem to miss is that we are a sovereign nation and have every right to decide who does and does not enter the country and become a citizen.
And to Xander, if nationalism is last century in your eyes, then so be it. You’ll be surprised in 2006 and 08 when real conservatives abandon the republican party because of “republicans” like you. Globalism is sedition and the neo-conservative pipe dream of democracy spreading is laughable. And more conservatives than ever are waking up to that. “Republicans” like you bother me far worse than people like Aldous. While I disagree with him 100% of the time, he at least UNDERSTANDS he is a liberal.
I’m genuinely not trying to insult either of you, or anyone on this blog. As I said, I’m no member here. However, I have seen nothing but un-productive left-right bickering and punditry here. 9/10 of articles posted here, as one scrolls down, he sees the same things, stated differently posted over and over again.
As long as there are “Republicans” like you preaching the global gospel, there will be people like us to fight you. And there are more of us than you would like to think.
Be well,
Bobby

Posted by: Bobby at April 27, 2006 6:19 AM
Comment #143447

Actually, Aldous, they were not.

I am not against immigration, as I have written. I am insulted at the attitude some people are taking. Nothing gringo day. Imagine if we Americans did a nothing —- day. Racism, intolerance and xenophobia aimed at us is still racism and intolerance and xenophobia.

I wrote this because I am annoyed at the whole idea. The fact is that if people do not want to work it is their problem more than mine.

I can mow my own grass and if NOBODY worked those infernal leaf blowers it would be a better world.

Every group is necessary to the working of society. Americans, ordinary Americans, are probably the most important. The U.S. produces a third of the world’s GNP, gives most of the food aid, supports ¼ of the UN, is responsible for most of the science Nobel prizes, patents etc. In a real nothing Gringo world, everybody suffers. SO the nothing Gringo folks can take a flying leap at a rolling donut. They need us more than we need them and I am sick of babying them.

BTW - most people will do fine on May 1. They will not do anything. I don’t employ any illegals. But if I did I would fire any who didn’t show up on Monday. It would be my “nothing stupid” day.

Posted by: Jack at April 27, 2006 7:51 AM
Comment #143452

IM,

As David pointed out in his post, this is a sequential problem(screw-up by the Bush administration). It joins the many screw-ups by this administration. He should have addressed the primary issue of securing the borders prior to addressing the issue of what to do about the people who have already crossed the border and are living here.
Bruce Hare, a social scientist gives this analogy:
“If your kitchen sink is flooding your kitchen, it would be wise to turn off the leaking faucet prior to cleaning the water off the floor.”
It shows how out of touch the Bush administration is. If any of us look into the issue we would see a bi-partisan concern for border security. The morons running the country have turned the issue into a partisan, “deport them all, let god sort em out bunch of nonsense vs. They’re immigrant workers who do jobs we don’t want.”
If the people in a position to lead would have addressed the issue of border security(leaky sink) first, then asked what to do about the non-documented people who are already here(the water on the floor)it would most likely become an issue the American people as a whole could have gotten behind and supported. Bush the “unifier” and “decider” once again dropped the ball.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 27, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #143457

It sure is strange that the day that communists all over the world for decades have celebrated as their day happen to be—you got it—May 1.

Recently the company that handles the recycling and producing pallets named IFCO was hit by ICE. A good direction to go. Let’s do it again and again and again. Somebody must be smart enough out there. Not all of them are stupid, I suppose.

And lastly, those businesses who have employees AWOL for a demonstration and protest should show us their mettle. Fire them!! Report them!! Begin their trip back home.

BTW—why is it that those poverty stricken people have the thousands of dollars it takes to get here. Maybe there is something to those in CA who say they are here to take the land back they think belongs to them. Simply put, this is an invasion of a foreign force.

Posted by: tomh at April 27, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #143458

Hey Jack,

I thought you believed in the free market? If some people want to organize a “don’t buy whatever” day, shouldn’t you applaud their free choice?

In my house, every day is a “buy nothing from Wal-Mart” day. Both my family and Wal-Mart do fine.

And if a bunch of people want to have a “skip work” day, I say good on ‘em! It should be immediately followed up with “Hey, you’re fired” day.

Choices, consequences, and the market.

I love it.

Posted by: Arr-squared at April 27, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #143463

Amen Arr-squared!

Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #143474

Arr-squared and Kctim,

Will firing them give us border security?NO
Will firing them force them to leave the country?NO
Will firing them satisfy the bigot that quietly and carefully lives in the heart of half this country?YES
I’d rather someone call me a spic to my face. I can respect that as a clearly stated view.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 27, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #143494

Andre:

What do you propose the US do to resolve the issue of illegal aliens?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 27, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #143496

“Will firing them satisfy the bigot that quietly and carefully lives in the heart of half this country?YES”

So if I fire someone who doesn’t show up for work I’m a bigot?

Posted by: Sean Fornelli at April 27, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #143498

1. Create a political environment that is not so threatening so that those who are here will come forward.
2. Background checks.
3. Criminals and those not willing to be truthful will be forced to leave.
4. Those who are hard-working and honest can stay.
5. We secure our borders to keep out terrorists, not use border security to satisfy the, “keep out the mexican”bigots.
6. We create a process that regulates who is allowed to enter the country, creating a “good guy” come on in,”bad guys” stay out policy that secures the border and is welcoming to immigrants
from all nations.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 27, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #143503

your a spic. not much can be said than when you call us the great white race, cracker, gringo ect. sticks and stones ya know. some Mexican lawyer said the term illegal is equal to the N word. Well we could start calling them what they are “Criminal Immigrants.” or if all else fails we could treat Criminal Immigrants like Mexico treats someone who breaks the law in Mexico. Tit for Tat then when you get put in jail for being a criminal in the eyes of the law you will probably never be heard from again.

Protest if you must but be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions.

su es criminal!

Posted by: lm at April 27, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #143506

Is everyone here MISSING something?

Nothing “Gringo” Day? Gringo is NOT a nice word. It’s like saying “Nothing ‘WETBACK’ Day”…or “Nothing ‘WOP’ Day” or “Nothing ‘HEBE’ Day” or “Nothing ‘N-WORD’ Day”.

These people are insulting us to our faces and we don’t call them on it.

On a totally different track…I’m glad they’re here. We should make them all citizens right away.

Absolutely.

All the people (like myself) who were worried about Social Security running out…guess who will be paying in taxes to make Social Security solvent? New citizens. We should make them all citizens right away.

America is a “consumer” nation…a nation that buys more than it sells. With the influx of new citizens desperate to have a job and produce more goods than we can use, maybe we could start turning that around. Maybe we could become…dare I say it…a “producer” nation (ahh…thoe “good old days”) instead of a “consumer” nation. Talk about levelling out the trade deficit. We should make them all citizens right away.

Don’t get me wrong, I am still all for my “Buy Mexico” proposition. I think buying Mexico is the only long-term plan that makes total sense.

But if we’re NOT going to Buy Mexico…

We should make them all citizens right away.

Posted by: Jim T at April 27, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #143507

Andre M. Hernandez

How refreshing to have someone post who actually has a plan and not just partisan sour grapes!

Thanks!

Posted by: Cathy at April 27, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #143508

“It sure is strange that the day that communists all over the world for decades have celebrated as their day happen to be—you got it—May 1.”

May day is International Workers Day, which is not communist in origin but was cellebrated by communists for obvious reasons. Its meant to commemorate the people who’s efforts are unappreciated, and who make so little they can barely make it, but without whom society would not function.

god damn commies.

Posted by: iandanger at April 27, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #143510

we have a system to say come in good guy, stay out bad guy it is called immigration policy. you apply for a card, you appy for citizenship as an American and you become a citizen after you accomplish the steps to become one. You then pledge your loyalty to the United States and you can be proud of your culture but never every fly our flag upside down under the flag of the nation you so desperately wanted to abandon else fly it in Mexico. What you all did when you flew the flag upside down under the Mexican flag is not going to be forgotten and a lot of people might just do without your services rather than tolerate your disrespect. It shows why Mexico is in the shape it is in. If you want pride in Mexico go home and make it respectable.

Posted by: lm at April 27, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #143513

IM,
Thank you for confirming that this is not about policy for some people, it’s a skin color issue.
As I stated earlier, Bush sequentially screwed up. He addressed problem 2 before addressing problem 1.
Bush also didn’t count on all the”rightwing” bigots coming out of the woodwork and calling for the immediate detention and removal of immigrants already here.
I bet I can find some Native Americans who are all for rounding up all illegal aliens and shipping them back to their homelands.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 27, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #143514

I would like some clarification from the 300,000 people who plan to disrupt my workday in Chicago as to why I bothered to wait in line, file the correct forms and pay hundreds of dollars in fees in order to qualify as a legal immigrant. My answer? Respect for the rule of law and for the society that I want to live in. Any kind of amnesty or legalization is a slap in the face for those of us that came here in accordance with the rules that determine who the US wants to live here.
Economic arguments for legitimizing the status of illegal immigrants are no different from those that slaveowners used in the nineteenth century. If costs rise as a result of deporting these people, it is simply the price a society must pay for upholding its laws and having enough self-respect to decide who it allows to become a member.
If Mexico is such a hell-hole that its citizens are willing to run the risk of a painful death in the desert, then the international community should be subjecting their government to the kind of shaming that the North Koreans get. How about banning any remittances to Mexico by people that cannot prove their legal status? This would begin to force the Mexican government to start taking action to improve its citizens’ lot and also reduce the numbers of people crossing the border.

Posted by: Nick at April 27, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #143524

Andre M. Hernandez,

That’s the current proposal so many people are bitching about. People have to get jobs and work here for 15 years legally to stay. The rules around staying are tough.

Jack,

Please tell me why it angers Republicans so much that Mexicans may take American jobs, when you have no problem whatsoever with US companies outsourcing our jobs oversees? Is it that it’s only a problem when the crappy jobs are taken from Americans but not the good ones? And speaking of tax incentives, as you have a lot recently, would you say you agree with Kerry that tax incentives should be in place to keep work in the United States?

If I read your position correctly, it’s that Mexican workers should be sent home and our companies should go abroad and hire them?

Historically, immigrants have always come here for work, but Republican policies now send the companies elsewhere, and let me tell you what happens - the same thing that happens here. The low-level workers work their way up to more promising positions. When this happens in the States it makes our country stronger, when it happens elsewhere all you are doing is building companies and skills from the ground up in other countries. Watch and learn, India will explode with talent and companies providing services at all levels in the tech industry and boot out the American ones.

Posted by: Max at April 27, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #143526

David
Your going to piss off the Liberals with your talk of erecting barriers and deporting illegals there buddy. But I happen to agree with you.
We need to get the illegal immigration problem under control, and fast. But until our bought and paid for idiots up in DC are replaced with folks that will listen to the people instead of special interest and big donors I’m afraid nothing serious is going to get done.
I don’t think this latest round of ‘get tough’ on illegals legisilation is anything more than our idiots trying to keep their ca$hy cu$hy jobs.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 27, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #143528

It is all about policy. The Government of the United States has a policy and procedure for handling immigration into the country.


Laws are established and if followed legaly meets all needs of people seeking citizenship. When you trespass on someones property their is a policy in place to deal with this also. Like Nick said it is a slap in the face of all who did what the policy required. what you want is a new policy dictated by criminal trespassers.

Criminals don’t dictate policy only in a riot condition. We have swat teams to deal with criminal riots.

Like I said I have no problem with immigration only illegal immigration. Do it right and you can then get the liberal sensation of the warm and fuzzies in your body. Not much substance but you can feel good about yourself.

the lack of border inforcement is not just bush’s problem but carter’s, Reagan’s, and especially Klinton’s. After all if Mexico were a Muslim nation clinton would have bombed the hell out of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Look at Serbia.

Posted by: lm at April 27, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #143529

I totally agree with lm. We have a system call legal immigration, like many other countries, including Mexico. By the the way, see the link below on how Mexico treats illegal aliens. It is so hypocritical.

Legal immigration is there for a reason, many reason. To screen out criminals, control diseases, document newcomers, control numbers a country can absorb in a given year, etc. I have heard many excuses supporting or justifying illegal immigrations and they are all weak and lame. None has offer any real favorable statistics, other than slogans and playing the race card. Plus, illegal immigration is illegal. What I have seen are unfavorable statistics NOT in favor of illegal immigration due to the added economic and social costs to American citizens.

On another note. Several of those 911 terrorist got here illegally, using fake documents.


Posted by: keith at April 27, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #143534

Jim T
Don’t you know, they have the right to insult us because they’re not Americans. they also have the right to demand that we support them, educate them, and give them medical care, and learn their language. All this because they’re not Americans and illegal. Why they have more rights than we do.
As Americans we have to be careful not to make these criminals feel unwelcome. After all that’s not PC.
Well I for one don’t give a shit about their feelings. They aint here legally and need to carry their asses back to Mexico. And the sooner the better.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 27, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #143546

I don’t think any of you are familiar with the proposal…

The proposal is to change the law to make being an illegal a felony. The counter proposal is to let them stay, but only if they get legal jobs and have tabs kept on them over the next 15 years or so. If they remain law-abiding, they can become citizens.

I don’t disagree with any of you that illegals broke the law, but putting them all in jail isn’t feasible. I am losing patience with Republicans and their completely batshit insane rhetoric. It’s an irresponsible proposal, because WE DON’T HAVE THE MONEY TO THROW THEM ALL IN JAIL - LET ALONE FOR TEN YEARS OR SO. I am trying to put this in a way you Reps can understand - DO YOU WANT TO PAY HIGHER TAXES TO THROW ALL THESE PEOPLE IN JAIL? Many of these people are hardworking and make real contributions to society. Why cut off your nose to spite your face? Give them the chance to stay with tough restrictions. The proposal to throw them all out is unrealistic and impossible. Republicans - spend, spend, spend, cut taxes, borrow from China, come up with more unrealistic expensive proposals.

Posted by: Max at April 27, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #143547

Seriously, what happened to your party? I liked you guys better when you had no heart, but now you’ve gone and lost your brains too.

Posted by: Max at April 27, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #143556

Ron, thanks for your reply. I have been pissing off liberals for years. Problem is, I piss off conservatives as well, so, to conservatives I get tagged liberal, and to liberals I get tagged conservative. The perils of being an independent voter and writer.

Common sense and logic often defy opinions held by both the right and the left. That is why our left/right run government performs so poorly. They are struggling for power, I am struggling for real and sustainable solutions to America’s problems.

Immigration is a perfect example of how many on the left and right jockey for a position that will be neutral or advantageous in Nov’s elections, rather than a real and sustainable solution to the immigration problem. On the left they want to show to the Hispanic voting block that they are more compassionate than the GOP. And on the right, they want to uphold their quid pro quo obligation to wealthy campaign donors to keep a free flow of cheap labor coming across the border.

The real and sustainable solution requires an effective border barrier backed up by rapid response interdiction for those trying to circumvent the barrier, and a rational immigration policy that fills the real needs of our economy, labor force, and safe harbor for the oppressed with naturalized citizens, NOT millions of guest workers which become an administrative nightmare to monitor and enforce.

This is why Voting Out Incumbents is the only way the voters are ever going to get politicians to commit to common sense, sustainable solutions to America’s problems.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #143559

David,

“Common sense and logic often defy opinions held by both the right and the left. That is why our left/right run government performs so poorly. They are struggling for power, I am struggling for real and sustainable solutions to America’s problems.”

This struggle for power is the reason that nothing ever gets done.

I have posted before that a border fence will be useless, as well as expensive.

One of the major problems isn’t the lack of a fence, it’s the lack of enforcement of the laws already on the books.

Here in Phoenix, for instance, if an illegal is stopped for a traffic violation, they aren’t arrested as an illegal, they are given the ticket and told to go on their way.
Employers of illegals aren’t procecuted under the current statutes or are given a slap on the wrist.

What exactly is the point of enacting new laws, if we don’t enforce the laws we already have?

What is the point of building a fence if we aren’t going to enforce the laws?

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #143566

Why can’t we move all 12 million back to Mexico?
As Jay Leno said “Mexico did it”

Posted by: tomh at April 27, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #143568

tomh,

Somehow Mexico has to look more attractive?

When are you moving?

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #143571

Ron Brown,

Oh, yeah…I forgot. Sorry.

You can call white folks “cracker”, “gringo”, “honkey”, “whitey” or whatever…but if you say “illegal”…why, you’re up to your eyeballs in PC BS.

Please accept my (in)sincere apology for pointing out racist hate speech…a very sensitive reference…made by our human brothers from south of the boarder, who, by the way, are NOT illegal. I forgot to remember that NO human is illegal.


Posted by: Jim T at April 27, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #143583

Rocky, the laws are unenforceable without the fence to reduce the numbers crossing. The huge numbers crossing overwhelm our enforcement ability. That has been true for more than a decade now.

Yes, the fence will be expensive. Having no control of our borders is even more expensive. Defense of one’s nation is never cheap, Rocky. C’mon, a little common sense is called for here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #143585

Jack,

You’re starting to sound like simonson.
That’s not a compliment, in case you were uncertain about something for a change.

Unless of course the A-hole you talk about is your President DickBush.

Posted by: Dave at April 27, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #143589

David,

“Defense of one’s nation is never cheap, Rocky. C’mon, a little common sense is called for here.”

A little common sense would have dictated that we secured the borders before we went into any war on terror.

“Rocky, the laws are unenforceable without the fence to reduce the numbers crossing.”

Unenforceable?

We’re not even trying.

There are laws against hiring illegals, if there weren’t any jobs there would be a hell of alot fewer illegals.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #143590

BTW, Rocky, explain to me how a high tension electric fence would be useless. Would anyone in their right mind try to scale an electrified fence? I should guess such a fence bounded on either side by an additional barrier with warning signs, would effectively halt about 90% of the traffic, over night. The other 10% would come by boat to coastal areas or attempt to tunnel. Seismic sensors along the fence and our very capable Coast Guard would be able to handle about 9% of that 10%. Hence, we would be left with having to deal with about 1% of the current traffic flow across our borders, who would mostly be smuggled in via cargo containers through checkpoints.

If you think a fence capable of stemming up to 99% of the illegal immigration flow across our border each year would be too expensive, we will just have to agree to disagree. For me the common sense of this is inescapable by an objective assessment.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #143592

Rocky, the numbers are so staggering that the very best our Border Patrol can do is process those they catch. I agree with you entirely that we are not enforcing our laws, and yes, employers of illegals should be prosecuted. But first, you have to devise a method for employers to definitively determine who is, and who is not, illegal. Then, you must deal with the immense problem of counterfeit identification, a rapidly growing black market in America.

All of those problems would be dramatically reduced with an electric fence.

This is a classic case where an ounce of prevention (electric fence) is worth tons of cure (law enforcement without the fence).

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #143594

Jim T
Of course no person is illegal.

But some persons are immigrants.

And some persons are legal immigrants.

And some persons are illegal immigrants.

See how simple that is.

Posted by: tomh at April 27, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #143599

Max, you are ignoring the very valid Conservative argument that amnesty will be a lure for even greater hordes of illegals in the future.

Where Republicans get downright dense is when they back away from the border fence. It is lunacy to keep the revolving door open at the border, yet, that is what many of them want to do because their interests lie with cheap labor and/or not alienating the Hispanic Voting block at election time. For many, they want to look tough on illegal immigration without actually halting it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #143604

David,

“BTW, Rocky, explain to me how a high tension electric fence would be useless. Would anyone in their right mind try to scale an electrified fence?”

It’s simple physics.

Do you have any idea how much current would have to be gennerated to electrify a fence 2,000 miles long, even at a low enough voltage that would deter and not kill someone?

We’re bitching about the brownouts now.
Are you willing to give up your A/C unit?

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #143607

David,

“But first, you have to devise a method for employers to definitively determine who is, and who is not, illegal. Then, you must deal with the immense problem of counterfeit identification, a rapidly growing black market in America.”

Isn’t this the purvey of the FBI?

I have heard talk of a website where an employer could check the credentials of a prospective employee.
Why hasn’t anything been done on this front?
It would seem cheaper than building a fence.
It could be paid for with the fines that employers that violate the laws pay.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #143610

Senoir Hernandez said,

“I bet I can find some Native Americans who are all for rounding up all illegal aliens and shipping them back to their homelands.”

I know Montezuma and the Aztec would be all for deportation. seems they owned Mexico before the Spaniards came and destroyed it with murder and disease. In those days a flourshing well advanced society lived in Mexico. Way more so than now. You could actually drink the water.

After all the illegal immigrants of that day only wanted to work for some gold to take home! by the way didn’t the Apache and Navajo own New Mexico and Arizona before the Mexicans stole it from them? Comanche owned Texas before Mexico stole it from them? Not to mention California.


Posted by: lm at April 27, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #143613

Im,

“After all the illegal immigrants of that day only wanted to work for some gold to take home! by the way didn’t the Apache and Navajo own New Mexico and Arizona before the Mexicans stole it from them? Comanche owned Texas before Mexico stole it from them?”

If you knew anything at all about Native Americans, you would know that for the most part, they didn’t belive that they owned the land, they belived themselves caretakers.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #143618

Andre:

Thanks for responding, but the devil is in the details, which you failed to provide. Simplistic answers are easy, workable plans require thought and compromise.

Do you favor the creation of more static barriers on the border? Do you favor permission to stay for workers here illegally at the expense of those immigrants waiting in line or would you just increase the quota of immigrants from the affected nations? Do you feel that immigrants should have a visible means of support set up as part of legally entering the US? Who will be responsible for the costs of hosting immigrants with no means of support?

There are a hundreds of issues to be addressed and parades aren’t going to address any of them. Employees missing work on Monday are not projecting the image of an industrious group seeking employment. Employers who are short staffed as a result of this selfindulgent stunt are being punished for offering employment. Is this the image immigrant groups want to project?


Posted by: goodkingned at April 27, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #143621

IM,

We are all immigrants.
If you want to use them for cheap labor you call them migrant guest workers. If you want to blame them for all of your woes, call them illegal aliens.
If you want to blame them for everything wrong in America you say deport the illegal immigrant alien job steling Mexicans.
I have several friends who are in this country from Ireland and are undocumented. I’d hate to see them deported. They’re good people. I also have a friend from Peru who is a hard working person who gives to his community and I would hate to see him deported also.
Once again I will reiterate that this issue could have been addressed correctly by addressing the bipartisan issue of BORDER SECURITY first, then a more productive debate on illegal immigration would have unfolded and we could enforce immigration laws as they are written and helped people like my friends stay in the United States.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 27, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #143625

The Native Americans were caretakers and very good at it. They were also very forgiving of immigrants until it was too late.

not a good time in history for how peoples treat one another.

but they did claim ownership as territorial rites went. each fought to maintain it between tribes long before immigrants from spain or europe came over, such as hunting grounds ect.

Posted by: lm at April 27, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #143628

Goodkingned,

I don’t know the letter of the law on immigration, I just think that we all wanted border security beefed up(wall, fence or moat filled with sharks)We all want to secure the border. What Washington has done is skip this and sabre rattle against illegal immigrants without fixing the real problem that needed their attention first. People can then create meaningful legislation to keep the desired folks here illegally and ship criminals home. We must first plug the hole in the pipe, before we do the mopping.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 27, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #143631

I call someone here from any country without proper papers of entry Illegal Aliens. Not just from Mexico. But if anyone wants to flaunt the contribution Illegals make to this nation, consider the health care catastrophe in California that has resulted from free I repeat free medical care for anyone. Not only in Ca but also in TX. You seem to know a lot about how illegals are broken down into what they do. After all your the one who says they steal jobs. I might like to suppliment my retirement by letting one walk off because he or she thinks they are non-expendable. life goes on both sides of the border.

Posted by: lm at April 27, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #143634

I’ve spent the last few minutes browsing all the posts regarding illegal aliens and have noticed a third option is missing - it’s called “attrition”.

Instead of spending tax dollars “rounding up” or “blending” illegal aliens, let’s spend the money taking away the incentives for staying or coming here illegally in the first place by:

1. developing a tamper resistant work card and Social Security card with information accessible to employers for immediate verification of an employee’s status (similar to using a credit card)

2. enforcing laws intended to combat illegal entry already on the books as vigorously as the illegal drug laws

3. creating new laws to plug the immigration loop holes - such as preventing sanctuary communities and make reporting illegal aliens everybody’s responsibility

4. stopping all forms of public assistance.

Securing our borders is a given and ranks right up there with #1 and the results are like this; No jobs - no place to hide - no handouts - no reason to come here illegally and/or remain!!

As for being offensive or PC - those who cross our borders illegally and expect preferential treatment, consume tax dollars without contributing, disrespect our flag and culture, attempt to assimilate us into their culture and work for substandard wages and take their tax free booty back to their homeland, to mention a few, is politically incorrect and extremely offensive to me.

Stop with the sensitivity crap, already. If citizens of other countries don’t like where they are, do something about it within their own system or follow the letter of our laws and do as my great grandparents did - earn their way! Oh ya, something grandpa used to say when we kids would try packing his ears full of bs applies now as well, “Don’t be pissin’ on my leg and calling it rain”. My leg is getting wet and it’s not raining. Time to apply KISS principal, No Amnesty - No guest worker programs. (Period)

P.S. Please feel free to copy this and send it to your elected officials.

Posted by: Terry C at April 27, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #143635

Im,

Why have the borders not been secured after 9-11?
Why have the republicans not enforced immigration laws after 9-11?
It’s politics.
Border security first.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 27, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #143643

Andre:

I don’t know the particulars of immigration law myself, but I do think barriers along the areas most frequently infiltrated will help stem the tide.

Although, the moat plan has a nice theatric appeal.

Anyway, Happy May Day. Before the institutionalization of May 1st as a grim political milemarker, pagans celebrated May 1st as part of nature’s rebirth cycle and celebrated by picking flowers and having sex. Doesn’t that sound more fun than any of the modern May 1st observances?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 27, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #143646

Rocky, your comments are really lacking integrity.

First, electrifying a fence takes very little energy. I can electrify a fence around my 5 acres on a car battery, and it smarts like hell, but, won’t hurt you unless you have a pacemaker hooked up to your heart. Is energy free? No. But, we are not talking billions here. Just a few million a year if that much. And we have already lost that much debating this issue in Congress for one cumulative month.

Second, you either put up a barrier or you man the 2000 miles. Which is cheaper. You can look it up. Amortized over 10 years, the fence is way, way, way cheaper. Why are you dodging the obvious here?
Law enforcement hasn’t a chance in dealing with more than a million people crossing our borders undetected and undeterred.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #143650

David R. Remer

To amplify your post on energy to power the fence. There is a way of providing energy and that is with wind and solar. This would also provide the incentive for others to use wind and solar for other worthwhile projects. This would be a great side benefit for an electrified fence.

Of course the red-nosed senator from MA does not believe in wind energy. To get his vote we could argue that it truly is not in his back yard.

Posted by: tomh at April 27, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #143656

David,

“Rocky, your comments are really lacking integrity.”

Integrity?

Give me a break.

At 15’high X 2,000 miles long we’re talking over 300,000,000 square feet of fence.
Where I come from that’s a damn big yard.
We haven’t even talked about how much the fence is going to cost, where we’re even going to get that much fence, who’s going to build it, let alone where the power is going to come from, and who’s going to supply the power.

David do we just call up the local Home Depot?

The Mexican border isn’t like some Sonoran Desert postcard, with a few cactus and rattlesnakes.

David, belive me I’m not trying to be patronizing, but you better than any of us should know what America’s financial situation is.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #143658

Max

It doesn’t anger me that Mexicans (or others are working here). I would like to have a regularized policy for useful people to come to the U.S. In fact, I think we should try hard to get smart people to move to our country.

The thing that bothers me about the nothing gringo day is that the people who do it are racists bigots who are insulting me. I don’t believe most people will be involved, so I am not talking about the whole group. As for those who are taking part, they can go to hell. I feel no obligation to people like that. They came to my country voluntarily and often against the laws of my country. If they don’t like it, they can return to the land of milk and honey from whence they came.

It is a slightly different context, but the sentiment is the same as what Davy Crocket told the people of Tennessee. (I paraphrase). If you reelect me, I will serve you well and honorably. If you do not, you can go to hell and I shall go to Texas.

Dave

I found the gringo thing insulting. I don’t take kindly to that sort of thing and I was not trying to write a reasoned or pleasant response. If these guys don’t like me, let them depart. There are plenty of good people that want to come to the U.S. and work hard. We don’t need the surly ones. We have enough of our own already.

They have a right in our free society to protest. It is not a right they enjoy to the same extent in their country of origin. Most people I talk to are grateful for the opportunity in the U.S. Obviously they like it better here, or they would have stayed their. IF they say they don’t, they are lying since they always retain the option of leaving.

I just want to call these guys on their racism and bigotry. Just like I criticize the KKK racists if they want to march in my park, I criticize the nothing gringo racists.

Posted by: Jack at April 27, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #143659

tomh,

“To amplify your post on energy to power the fence. There is a way of providing energy and that is with wind and solar.”

Both of these technologies are maintenence and cost intensive, otherwise we would be using these as our main sources if power.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #143663

I hope I don’t offend anyone with my choice of musical reference later on, (one of those songs you can’t get out of your head no matter how hard you try). The border issue is simply a debate over the rule of law or not. The war in Iraq was and is an issue of an administration proactively protecting America or not. Dems would have us believe that illegals sneaking into our country are OK, they just want to work. They seek to help these illegals to stay, become instant citizens and lobby hard for them to vote early and vote often for the Democratic ticket. Dems voted for the war, seeing the same intelligence the Brits and the Bush administration saw, (and some of the same intelligence Bubba claimed made Saddam a direct threat to the U.S.), before they voted against it. Repubs, rule of law, (even though the President has been weak on border enforcement so far), the Dems, well here goes…“feelings, nothing more than feelings…

Posted by: JR at April 27, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #143664

Rocky, if we can put people on the moon, we can surely erect a fence. C’mon. China did it out of masonry centuries ago. Your saying we can’t do it today?

Call Home Depot? No, call the suppliers to Home Depot and get competitive bids. The bids of course would come from China. But, that’s another topic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #143665

JR, don’t lay that crap at Democrats feet alone. President Bush has made the same comments about letting them stay as reported in the press just today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #143671

tomh, great idea. Since so much of the fence would reside in the SUN belt, solar powered to battery maintained is an obvious choice. Thanks for thinking of that and commenting on it. Wish I’d thought of that. Huge secondary benefits provided the solar panels can sit out of stone’s throw of the Mexicans on the other side of the fence :-).

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #143672

David,

“Rocky, if we can put people on the moon, we can surely erect a fence. C’mon. China did it out of masonry centuries ago. Your saying we can’t do it today?”

No, I never said it couldn’t be done. I said it would be useless and expensive

BTW, The Great Wall took 1,800 years to build, was built with forced labor and was, over all, inefective.
It is also known as the world’s longest graveyard, because so many workers died in it’s construction.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #143673

Limiting our thinking to Internal US and external US creates a Catch 22 situation. Walls are not needed, efficient and much larger scale visa programs are needed, to ensure that everyone who wants to enter the country can (and in a very fast and easy manner) except those that are dangerous criminals. The current process is far too limiting and binding to be effective which is why people don’t bother.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 27, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #143708

David,
So says I in my comments. Nothings easy about the problem so why an easy get out of jail free card? ‘Cause it makes Dems feel better about themselves instead of them having any down & dirty meat on the bone input in solving the problem, no making the hard decision to put forth legislation, just call everyone a citizen and blame Repubs for less than compassionate conservatism. Again, I wish our President was more focused on a solid solution instead of forgive and forget! Bottom line is laws are in place, enforce them instead of pandering.

Posted by: JR at April 27, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #143711

Rocky, you haven’t provided one shred of evidence that the fence would be useless. May I remind you that such a fence was created across Europe and was so effective as to be called the Iron Curtain. So, unless you can provide evidence it would not stem the flow of illegal immigrants across that border, your protestations have no merit.

I have pointed out that it would not be as expensive as wide open borders already are. D.a.n. has enumerated the costs of illegal immigration in great detail, in the billions. The fence would not be that expensive and would continue to reap savings from not have this same problem 10 years from now.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #143714

David,

“Rocky, you haven’t provided one shred of evidence that the fence would be useless. May I remind you that such a fence was created across Europe and was so effective as to be called the Iron Curtain. So, unless you can provide evidence it would not stem the flow of illegal immigrants across that border, your protestations have no merit.”

So should I just consider myself dismissed?

I might remind you that the “Iron Curtain” was built by a totalitarian government, and it wasn’t completely effective at stopping the “flow” of those that wanted badly enough to escape either.

Have a day.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #143720

Or we could institute a real viable option, like a a true regional trade agreement (like NAFTA is supposed to be) and grant free movement to all non felons between all regional countries. That would also prevent a problem in the next 10 years and would work to increase our market competitiveness and increase the standards of living for many in the region. We gotta get over this us and them bull.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 27, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #143725

Rocky, what does “who built it” have to do with the argument? Are you implying that if we build a fence to safeguard our borders that it will make us totalitarian? Get real, bub!

And I nor anyone else made the claim that that a fence would halt 100% of illegal immigration. So that reply of yours is also meaningless. It could stop up to 90% however, and given 1.4 million illegals crossing our border every year, 90% is solves most of the problem.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #143728

In ref to the Nothing Gringo Day
I for one will let them have there day as they want it. However I think we should have a nothing Mexican, I plan on buying Nothing made in mexico, Also most produce is picked by Illegals in this Country. Let all the produce sit on the shelf and spoil. Nothing Mexican Lets show them Buy American If at all possible

Posted by: Larry VanderVeen at April 27, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #143732

Considering even stuff made in America is allowed that title with up to a percentage of content from Mexico I think you best stop buying all items altogether Larry. Since we regionalized in 1993/1994, the idea of separating American goods from Mexican goods is impossible. If you want only local content, may I suggest moving Tibet.. I believe most of what they consume is all “local” in nature.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 27, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #143733

May 1 will be the worst day for illegal immigrants. the 60’s was a time of unrest that blacks sought equal rights. They were here legally and should have had some room to improve their lot in life. they got it and to some degree have improved and moved up if they chose to. I personaly had no problem with people of color as we played football, school and sat with them on road trips to eat. Some of my best friends so to speak. don’t have a real problem with Mexicans until they want to bad mouth me and mine, call themselves something they are not and demand the rights of citizenship and rights they are not entitled to. Really would like to learn spanish or more Tex-Mex. I really have a problem with someone who uses my tax dollars flying a Mexican flag from the School flag pole, upside down under the Mexican flag. I have about as much use for people like this as I do the people who flew the planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. It amounts to treason and should be dealt with accordingly. Just my thoughts and hope no one does it in my presence as I will not tolerate it. I would not burn the Mexican flag because it flys over a soveriegn nation and demand the same respect of the American Flag. The immigrants that did this are worthless and underserving of citizenship.

Posted by: lm at April 27, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #143734

David,

“And I nor anyone else made the claim that that a fence would halt 100% of illegal immigration. So that reply of yours is also meaningless.”

Most of those that cross the border are just like you or I, except for an accident of birthplace. An infintecimal percentage of those that cross are truely criminal. Those are the ones that will not be detered by a fence.
You are prepared to spend billions and waste years to build a fence that won’t keep out the element that truely should be kept out.

You are entitled to your opinion, and that is all it is.

Build your fence,… but keep your doors locked.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #143736

Exactly Rocky… what we need is a regional immigration monitor that lets everyone BUT criminals flow freely.. walls don’t check IDs or background.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 27, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #143739

Rocky, it would appear that you believe America does not have enough population with 298 million people. Tell me, how close to China’s 1.3 Billion are you willing to take us?

Our population growth of necessity must coincide with our economic and productive capacities as well as quality of life expectations. Uncontrolled immigration for whatever reasons, humane or not, will jeopardize our quality of life standards, (already is by depressing wages) and with low wages, illegal immigrants are tapping far greater tax dollars per dollar tax paid than any other group of Americans.

We should treat and deal with illegal immigrants humanely. Sending them home is humane. Unless you believe we should not incarcerate any lawbreakers for any reason as that would be maltreatment. Law and order are breaking down in America. I just read that the feds sting operation netted the greatest number of fugitives from justice ever. But, you know what else was in that article? This largest roundup of fugitives ever represented only 1% of all fugitives.

Its about numbers Rocky. And maintaining our quality of life while controlling the opportunity our great nation extends to the billions of other people in the world, hundreds of millions of whom would move here in a heartbeat if they had an easy and legal way to do so.

Closing our border except for controlled checkpoints is the only way we can control immigration and balance these needs. Failing to do so, will only see a growing flood of illegal immigration until we get so bad here, few will find coming here very desireable anymore.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #143747

David,

“Rocky, it would appear that you believe America does not have enough population with 298 million people. Tell me, how close to China’s 1.3 Billion are you willing to take us?”

I am a realist.

You and I both know how the American Government works.
This is a ha.., uh snow job.
This is campaign retoric.
This is baloney all wrapped up with a bow.
Yeah, I know that Dan has this all worked out to the penny and the hours it will take to build the fence.

Yes David we went to the moon. We made our point.
How many times have we been back?
Do you guys want build the fence to make a point?
Do you realisticly think that anything wil be done with the 12.4 million that are already here?
Are we going to give them a bus ticket, and a pat on the ass, or do you want to make 12.4 million new felons?

Reality is a funny thing.

This fence is pie in the sky, and even if it is built it won’t do what you folks think it will do.
Those that want to get in will, and we won’t be able to stop them. Those that need to get in won’t. It’s as simple as that.

Besides when was the last time anything the government did actually met your expectations?

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #143752

David
I know the feeling. I manage to piss off both side too. The left because I’m Conservative. And the right because I’m an independent Conservative.
It seems everyone think everyone else should be what they are. That would get boring in a hurry.
Your right though, Both sides are so busy jockeying for power that they get nothing done.
It’s time to put the whole bunch in the unemployment line.

BTW
I’ve been working to unseat one politician locally. He’s a member of the School Board and needs to be kicked off. I don’t know how I got talked into it but I hope to be the one that replaces him. Right now I’m running behind him by about 15%. But I just started my campaign and a lot can happen before November.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 28, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #143753

Ron, outstanding. Best of luck with your campaign. I truly hope you win. Your common sense and logical approach to problems evidenced here on WatchBlog will serve you and your constituents well. My best wishes and compliments on your willingness to serve all the people and their children.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #143755

Rocky, without stopping the flow of a million plus across the border, it doesn’t matter what you decide to do with the 11 million already here. Deport them, they will be right back again, with more relatives tagging along. Keep them here, will only serve as a carrot to millions more desiring to follow their path. The Border Barrier is essential to making any other decisions be effective and productive.

We bought 5 acres. For a couple years, folks would cross our land frequently using it for everything from setting off fireworks to having picnics. We finally got the 5 acres fenced in with 5’ high horse fence, and signs saying Beware of Dogs, and Owners have firearms - DO NOT TRESPASS! In the last 5 years the fence has been up, the dogs got one of two teen trespassers, or their shirttails anyway, and someone else bent down the wire fence on another occasion, but we don’t know what for, but, I am sure they didn’t get far with our dogs.

That is the effect of a fence. Now if my fence were high voltage with appropriate warning signs, those two incursions would likely never have occured either. Sure some will still get in. But, most won’t, leaving our representatives to decide who comes in and when, which is far preferable to what we have now with no control.

Your apparent refusal to acknowledge the simple logic of this line of reasoning is incomprehensible to me. So, by all means, vote to let any and everyone who wants in, in. That is your prerogative. But, don’t expect the majority of Americans to follow your lead. You will be sorely disappointed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #143758

David,

“So, by all means, vote to let any and everyone who wants in, in. That is your prerogative. But, don’t expect the majority of Americans to follow your lead. You will be sorely disappointed.”

You assume too much.

I never said not to build the fence, by all means, if it makes you more secure, have at it.
What I HAVE said is that you will be sorely dissapointed with the results.
We will build this fence and it may work for awhile, but where is the next threat?
Where next will we spend money that could be put to better use?

I have seen you bitching and complaining about the cost of the war, the cost of the energy bill, the fact that we up to our asses in debt in this country and there is no end in sight.

Yeah, by all means, let’s build a fence the American way.
Let’s build it on low bid. Yeah, this is going to be great.
I can’t wait.

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #143759

David,

I am one of the first to admit that we have been invaded.
I have posted it time and again.
I have nothing but disgust for those arrogant protestors that assume that because they are on American soil, that they have the rights of American citizens.

On the other hand I have met in my journeys just plain folks that only want a job.

These folks do pay taxes if their employer is reputable, and recieve only a paycheck. They usually rent so any property tax that supports a school system is already figured into their rent.
What do they get for their taxes? Nothing, no unemployment, no healthcare, except maybe county hospital emergency, and if they get sick they lose their jobs because there is someone just as needy to take that job when their gone.

Yeah, they probably don’t have car insurance, but they are usually the slow guy in front of you on the highway.

Is there a criminal element?
You bet!
Is it a greater percentage than our own home grown criminals?
I seriously doubt it.

Most of these folks aren’t from the cities of Mexico. Most of these folks come here because they have lost their farms to a coop corporate farm because they can’t compete with the price of American exported goods.

And yeah, David, I get it, but it really stinks.

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #143760

Where are the republicans who have taken an economics course or two and know that free market and free flow of work force is required for improved performance and increased standards of living? Moreover, where are my fellow American’s that are over this us-them dynamic? We don’t need fewer immigrants, we need a more efficient system for processing and allowing LEGAL immigrants, so there is no need to be here illegally.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 28, 2006 1:27 AM
Comment #143765


Repubs don’t get it


Nearly the whole country is trying to move right towards the law and order party, Conservatives face being trounced in mid term elections and half of the of them are off in La-La land.
We face a sedition threat like never before and need the cavalry to ride in and rescue the nation and half of the rough riders are either too short sighted, intimidated or are in La-La land.
Sovereignty, patriotism and rule of law passion is sweeping the country and some conservatives are pandering to ten percent of the voting population.
And last but definitely not least is some politicians in America seem to actually believe the southwest and perhaps even the whole chunk of land we live on rightfully belongs to the Latinos and they will be taking it anyway so why not speed the process. Reprehensible but America needs statesmen patriots not politicians.
Just a little newsflash for Conservatives the American majority is awake and is in storm mode headed for a tsunami wave that will sweep weak kneed pro alien politicians out to sea.
Patriot heroes can ride the wave to office if they will stand strong for right versus wrong and save America from those who would destroy her.

Posted by: RMB at April 28, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #143766

Xander, what your missing is the disparity in quality of life between Central America, Mexico, and the U.S. Why is there not an illegal immigration problem on our Northern border? The reason is parity in quality of life.

To bring Mexico up to our quality of life, or to bring our quality of life down to Mexico’s (the shorter route) will take half a century or more. Until the time that there is parity in quality of life, our vastly superior quality of life will continue to motivate illegal immigration in ever growing numbers until such time, as I said, our quality drops and there’s increases to an approximately equal level.

That is the mandate for the border barrier - which not only will place an additional hurdle between us and terrorists, but, slow the degradation of our quality of life which is already underway.

Median income has been dropping in real terms for decades, and much faster in the last few years. 1% of the wealthiest in America control as much wealth as the bottom 90% of Americans, and that divide is getting wider by the year. This is significant because we are a demand driven economy which absolutely requires that the bottom 90% continue to sustain that demand with purchasing power. While overall inflation is in largely in check, the inflation rate for the middle and lower classes is 3 and 4 times that of the overall rate, due to health care, education, food, and energy cost increases. And with inflation eating their purchasing power away on the one side, wage declines in real terms are hitting them hard from the other.

Quality of life losses on this scale can, as Ben Bernanke warned Congress, lead to a protectionist electorate which in turn would cost America devastatingly in global competitive advantage. Quality of life losses as the AFL-CIO recently implied, could spark the come back of unionism in America, which also could deteriorate our global competitive advantage. Finally, quality of life losses and gross disparities in wealth can lead to civil strife and chaos as we saw in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

The greatest threat to America of uncontrolled immigration is loss of quality of life for American born citizens, who grow up under one quality of life standard with their parents which cannot be reproduced when they enter the work force. The consequences of that happening is something the U.S. Comptroller David Walker, the Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and a host of economists on both the liberal and conservative side have expressed concern over, and for really important reasons.

Following a numbers by rote economic philosophy is very dangerous if it does not take into account these less easily measured social and political consequences of wealth disparity growth and losses in inter-generational quality of life standards and expectations. Even the conservative Republican Alan Greenspan said it is a mistake to follow the theory that tax cuts pay for themselves as he pointed out that though they partially compensate for tax cut revenue losses with increased economic activity, it is wrong to believe the rate is even 70% recovery or anything like that.

Greenspan was pointing to the fact that philosophy ((tax cuts stimulate economic activity gains) that ignores real world data, (but result in net increased deficits in deficit prone periods) can ruin us, and our future. Bernanke and Walker are today reiterating that warning.

Illegal immigration is costing us far more than just downward pressure on wages. It is going to cost us civil harmony and peace in our border states as the Spanish language becomes ever more dominant. It is going to cost us intensely if a humanized communicable form of Avian flue breaks out in Central America or Mexico and we have no way of halting illegal immigration on a dime to prevent its rapid spread into the U.S.

Defending our borders is one of the most important obligations of government under our Constitution. Getting control of our borders so we dictate who comes across them is vital to our national security, vital to our quality of life, vital to economic well being, and vital to community health.

Allowing foreigner illegal immigrants to dictate our national security weaknesses, our economic weaknesses, our quality of life standards, and play Russian Roulette with our community health, is just plain stupid and violates one of the prime directives in our Constitution to office holders.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2006 2:41 AM
Comment #143767

RMB,

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you were be entirely sarcastic. If not, us La La republicans will continue to advance reason and justice and we can let the nationalists have their own party… I know I’ve heard of other nationalist parties… I can’t remember what they were called though. I know there was an active one in 1940’s Germany.. can anyone help me out? What was it called?

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 28, 2006 2:44 AM
Comment #143769

David,

What you’re missing is that it’s only “illegal” because we don’t have a system efficient enough at approving worker visas fast enough. It wouldn’t be illegal if we did our job right and allowed free-flow of workers so the hardest workers get the jobs.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 28, 2006 2:47 AM
Comment #143770

RMB,

Will the people that will be carrying the “storm” be called troopers? If so, I think we can find some great uniforms at discounted prices for them.


Posted by: Xander Jones at April 28, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #143771

Xander, your semantic games may be cute, but, I consider dodging the issue with semantics to be a waste of bandwidth on such an important topic. Let’s just redefine illegal immigrants as legal immigrants and all our problems will go away. Your comments are in serious need of a dose of reality, my friend.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2006 2:56 AM
Comment #143772

I’m not trying be cute. I am the one being realistic, they are only illegal because we have an inefficient system of making them “legal.” If we had a system that would efficiently check everyone who wanted in, then we would know the criminals from those just wanting to work and we could allow those that want to work and prevent the felons.

Moreover the amount of xenophobia (not articulated by you, but by some) is frightfully reminiscent of arguments that have been advanced in previous and very violent epochs. Whenever people put forth nationalist arguments to push out ethnic groups I think back to detainment of asian-americans in WWII, of preventing african americans from voting, of the French defining citizenship by color, of 40’s Germany using heritage to define citizenship.. These are very valid comparisons to the “THEY are ruining America” argument.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 28, 2006 3:02 AM
Comment #143773

These folks do pay taxes if their employer is reputable, and recieve only a paycheck. They usually rent so any property tax that supports a school system is already figured into their rent.
What do they get for their taxes? Nothing, no unemployment, no healthcare, except maybe county hospital emergency, and if they get sick they lose their jobs because there is someone just as needy to take that job when their gone.
- Posted by Rocky

I am astonished at your reasoning. If the spin on that statement could be harnessed, we could end our dependency on foreign oil.

You say they pay taxes if their employer is reputable.
That MEANS they pay taxes if they are deducted by the employer. What else could they do? In occupations which are operating within the law, employees receiving wages have some part of their taxes automatically collected each pay period. I authorized the government to increase the deductions from my wages to reduce the amount I owed at tax time. Do you think that illegals are doing that? I suspect that if they pay taxes, they pay the minimum, therefore increasing their tax debt at the end of the year. Are you suggesting that these illegals file tax returns on April 15th to pay any unowed taxes? If you have info on the tax returns and end of the year payments by illegals, please share.

Also, do you think that illegals are unhappy if their employer doesn’t put them on the books? My income would certainly look healthier if I didn’t have any deductions for taxes or the federal safetynet.

Next you said that paying rent translates into property tax which supports local education.
- I have two problems with that. First, statistically speaking illegals have large families and in areas with large concentrations of illegal aliens, the school systems are being overwhelmed. In addition to contributing to the volume of the population, children of illegals often have poor or nonexistent english language skills which require costly, time consuming english language curriculum just to place them into the mainstream educational system. The cost of the extra manhours,educational material and infrastructure used to provide special education to illegals’ children is all taken from the operating budget established to educate the children who legally live in the school district.

Regarding the illegals access to healthcare, don’t lose sleep at night worrying that illegal aliens aren’t getting access to local, state or federal funded healthcare systems. Why they are getting so much access that hospitals are closing down due to the tremendous costs incurred by providing free treatment to illegals. Illegals aren’t being persecuted at the hospital or clinic, since it’s illegal to inquire about the immigration status of patients.

Finally, you state your concern that there is not adequate protection of illegal immigrants illegal jobs which they illegally hold. Well really, there ought to be a law. Unless we band together as a nation to protect the illegal immigrants and their illegal jobs and improve their free health care and education, we are apparently in danger of not having enough illegal immigrants to suck the fat out our society. If we handle this situation properly, we can look forward to having America in the same fine economic position as Mexico. Once both countries are sinking ships, maybe the illegals will move back to Mexico, thus solving our illegal immigration problem.

That’s a brilliant solution Rocky.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 3:11 AM
Comment #143774

King Ned,

“That MEANS they pay taxes if they are deducted by the employer. What else could they do? In occupations which are operating within the law, employees receiving wages have some part of their taxes automatically collected each pay period. I authorized the government to increase the deductions from my wages to reduce the amount I owed at tax time. Do you think that illegals are doing that?”

Gee, ya think?

Did you and David go to school together?

You two infer an awfull lot of nonsense from what I have written.
Like a typical right winger, you take my anecdotal statement and make general sweeping judgement of what I actually wrote.

“Finally, you state your concern that there is not adequate protection of illegal immigrants illegal jobs which they illegally hold.”

Please clean your glasses because this is what I wrote;

“Most of these folks aren’t from the cities of Mexico. Most of these folks come here because they have lost their farms to a coop corporate farm because they can’t compete with the price of American exported goods.”

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 01:06 AM

How could you possibly get;

“”Finally, you state your concern that there is not adequate protection of illegal immigrants illegal jobs which they illegally hold.”“

from what I wrote above?

If you need it, I have a link to a really good reading comprehension course.

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 3:32 AM
Comment #143775

Xander, without a border barrier, what is to prevent those we reject through legal immigration from just moving down the line and coming in illegally?

And if employers are given the responsibility to discern who is legal and who is not, how do you propose they make that distinction?

And is it economically viable for a legal immigrant making 3.50 to 5.25 an hour to bring his wife and 5 kids over to live on his wages? Is it viable for him. Is it viable for American wages which are artificially depressed by his willingness to take such substandard wages due to his pending citizenship status for a couple years? And how does he educate his kids, get his medical care, and buy a car and become Americanized on 5.25 an hour?

Sorry, your nirvana utopian scenario is nothing more than wishful thinking which has no parallel in this practical and politically charged real world we live in. Fact is, Congress won’t buy your solution that we just need to enforce the laws, because effective law enforcement depends directly on our ability to stop the flow across the border FIRST and FOREMOST. More than a million a year are crossing over (conservative estimate). Give them a legal path and it will quickly become 3 million a year, then 5, and so on, until our quality of life in America is no better than in their homeland, and then they will stop coming here.

Your utopian ideal of more people means more development and infrastructure and profits is so full of holes it looks like Dick Cheney’s hunting buddy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2006 3:53 AM
Comment #143777

Rocky:

You asserted that illegals pay taxes if the employer is reputable as if this is an accomplishment on their part, when this sort of involentary cooperation with the law says nothing about their commitment to pay their fair share of taxes. My argument is that the ONLY income taxes collected from illegals are those automatically deducted from their pay checks. I further think that they don’t pay additional annual income taxes because they don’t file tax returns. The whole point of this line of reasoning is that I disagree with the accuracy of your assertion that illegals pay income tax. You went on to assert that since they didn’t receive health insurance or retirement benefits that they were getting a raw deal. That seems to imply that you think that taxation of illegals is unfair. Read your comment and you will see that tone.

Regarding job protections for illegals illegal jobs, I copied your comment as a header to my comment. Here’s what you wrote after you bemoaned illegals not receiving paid insurance at their illegal jobs:

… and if they get sick they lose their jobs because there is someone just as needy to take that job when their gone.

Perhaps you should read the entire comment from the top if you want to respond in a sensical fashion.

I see that you choose to ignore the information about illegals and their costs to education and health care systems, as well as those illegals who work entirely under the table paying no income tax at all. That’s wise since you don’t seem to be on the top of your game tonight.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 4:33 AM
Comment #143782

Yes… I see you guys are correct now, I’ve seen the error of my ways. I am going out to build that wall right now. Besides our southern neighbors, I think we need a wall that runs from arizona up to washington, and from DC to Illinois, because like mexico, the standard of living in the midwest and south is much lower than the coastal states, and I fear that if left unchecked the migration from these “I will work for federal minimum wage” states will undercut our superior waged and educated states. Moreover, we are going to set up our own tax system, we are tired of these midwesterners using up our tax dollars for their corn growing initiatives and health care issues. The amount of over 65 year olds moving to Arizona and California is a substantial burden. If we don’t do something immediately, our coastal areas might sink to the development level of the Dakatos, or even the Ozarks. Our economies are juggernaughts compared to the midwest and can continue without them. All of the midwesterners gonna stop working? That’s fine, we got huge corporations and don’t need anyone who will work for less than 100K a year.

Now that you mention it, we should insulate all of our urban areas from the rural. These areas have much lower standards of living, lower levels of education and cannot be suffered. They are destroying the urban way of life. People that will work for less than 500K a year? Please, they will undermine our economy. We should erect some more walls.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 28, 2006 6:44 AM
Comment #143791

Remember what happened to Kmart and Rosie Odonnell when she hacked on Tom Seleck about the NRA? The NRA and Gun owners of America joined forces and called Kmart. Kmart said she had the freedom of speech and they could not do anything about it. We boycotted Kmart and their stock went to pot. That is because the people who boycotted were real citizens who contributed to the system, taxes, health care, ect.

I think we should all flood Congress and the house May 1st and with calls protest the fact that criminals inside this United States dare demand rights they are not entitled to. Make our voices heard and they know we mean it in November unlike a group that have no voting rights. If and when they try to vote arrest them and send them home.

We pay the bills, we pay the health care and we carry more weight than the “jobs we won’t do” group. WE can protest and still go to work and shop. Shopping will be a lot easier without the lines of welfare cards, children running.

Let’s get organized and get it done. Sinko de Mayo. let us show them how to get things done.

Posted by: lm at April 28, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #143792

I say we build a wall(see King Kong) around the whole of the United States. We can call it our multipurpose wall.
It will prevent hurricanes from exposing racism in the United States.
It will prevent 9-11 from happening again exposing our war hawk government’s useless intelligence agencies.
It will prevent us from being exposed to the evils of cultural pluralism.
It will prevent other nations from confusing the United States of the past with the self-serving, cowardice,self-important, blowhard, bully, hypocritical, chickenshit nation we have become.
Those who want to hide from terror, go ahead. Don’t expect everyone else to do the same.
Im,
You have called me a spic, i’ll let that slide. Apparently you can use racial slurs here with immunity. I choose to let it slide because of the source of the slur.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 28, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #143803

Well said Andre.

Even if all undocumented immigrants get legalized racism will always be there, these people will manage to find some other people to look down to.

I’ve heard my own friends talking about Mexicans and Asians making fun of the money the work for over their countries, it is not a laughing matter and we should be a bit more christian to thank the Lord for what we have.

I applaud the government for the plans they have and what they will do, they have proved to me once more that maybe late but do deliver and their actions are what makes sense republican or democrats. RV.

Posted by: RV. at April 28, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #143809

Ned,

Sorry for going off on you, I have been fighting with a baulky multimedia computer all day.

However,
Nowhere in my post do I ask for anything except maybe a sympathy for those that are here working for a better life.

You guys make it sound as if the they came here to intentionally screw us out of our last dime, and it just ain’t so.
Yes there is a problem.
Is that what you guys want to hear?
I have said so before.
I abhor those demonstrators that think we owe them a living, and I have said so.
Though when I find one of these guys sitting on my couch in his underwear, drinking my beer. I’ll let you know.
Until then, I think that we should ease up on the retoric and hyperbole a bit.

Building a wall around America isn’t going to stop the rot from within.

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #143816

Oh, and BTW,
That rot is us not them.

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #143817

Does ANYONE here read history books? ANYONE?

There was a wall between East and West Germany a while back.

Did THAT work? How long did THAT work?

Everyone who wants to build a wall…go read your history books and THEN come back and respond.

Posted by: Jim T at April 28, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #143818

hernandez, you call me a bigot. you said to call you a spic. is it different for you since your last name gives you the right to call me whitey, honky, cracker, gringo ect. sticks and stones deal but you said call me a spic. look at your post. what a dumbass you are.

Posted by: lm at April 28, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #143823

Im,

If I told you to jump off a cliff would you?

Give the slurs a rest.

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #143833

Thanks David.
I looking forward to having the opportunity to serve the folks of this county.
The sad state of our educational system both locally and nationally has long been a thorn in my side. I may not accomplish much, but I hope to make a small difference here. I’m facing a man that’s been in office for 16 years and has never been opposed in an election.
He has voted on the wrong side of everything. There aint a problem that can’t be solved by throwing money at it according to him. He’s never seen a tax he doesn’t like and had a fit when recently the voters turned down a bond issue for $2.5 million to remove asbestos from the schools that’s supposedly been removed 3 times now.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 28, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #143835

Rocky, if i told you to go back to mexico would you? give it a rest.

Posted by: lm at April 28, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #143838

David,

I understand your point, I never said that I hadn’t.

The issue of border security has been on the table for years, and nothing has changed.

Why the great hue and cry for it now, this moment?

Do we think that we will wave a magic wand, and poof, a fence will appear, and stave off all evil from sullying our pristine country?

The time to think about security was in 1986 when the first amnesty was announced, and then again on Sept. 12th, 2001.

We now have 12.4 million more people, and more every day.
Frankly I can’t see these folks just saying “yep, you got us, we’ll go home now”.

Amnesty for the honest folks that here to work is a dumb idea, as is the fence.
Surely a country as technologicly advanced as we think we are can come up with a cheaper, better, more secure border surveillance option.

The cows are already out of the pasture, what are we going to do about it?

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #143842

IM,

“Rocky, if i told you to go back to mexico would you? give it a rest.”

Wow, I am impressed with that snappy response.

I guess I will just have to pack my bags and go.

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #143847

Wow, I am impressed with that snappy response.

I guess I will just have to pack my bags and go.

Posted by: lm at April 28, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #143848

The only thing amnesty will do is invite more illegals here. It will tell them that all they have to do is get here, not get caught for awhile, and Uncle Sap will make them legal and possibility citizens.
It also makes a mockery of our immigration laws and those that have followed them to come here legally.
I don’t have anything against anyone coming here to make a better life for themselves and their families. They do need to do it legally though.
If it’s going to take a wall around the entire country to keep illegals out then get the thing built.
But the best way to stop illegal immigration is to make it unprofitable to hire illegals. Fines alone won’t do the trick. The employer will just write them off his taxes.
Taking the employers business license along with fines and jail time might be the best way. But the penalties would have to very stiff. The business will have to be shut down the whole time the employer is in jail. Also the loss during this time and fines can’t be deducted from taxes.
If it’s unprofitable enough the employers that hire illegals won’t hire them. And then there would be no reason for them to come here illegally.
We also need to quit giving benefits to illegals.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 28, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #143853

Rocky:

Keep me posted on that couch situation. Hope today’s a better day for you.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #143855

Ron,

“Taking the employers business license along with fines and jail time might be the best way. But the penalties would have to very stiff. The business will have to be shut down the whole time the employer is in jail. Also the loss during this time and fines can’t be deducted from taxes.”

Stop the presses, Ron this is the single issue that is at the crux of the problem, and I’ll be damned if we don’t agree (again?).
You realize that we will be condemned for being against the small business owner.

“It also makes a mockery of our immigration laws and those that have followed them to come here legally.”

Can we also agree that the intention of these folks isn’t to make a mockery, but to make a better life?

Someone needs to be made an example, and they need to be pinned to the wall.

No offence to the Spanish only crowd, but do you think that someone that has extremely limited language skills would be the tipoff that a person is illegal?

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #143856

King Ned,

It’s a brighter day already.

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #143863

Im,

“I’d rather someone call me a spic to my face. I can respect that as a clearly stated view”

How is this saying for you to call me a spic by typing it from miles away?
To my face. Is that clarified?
I’m not saying you are a bigot, what you keep typing on this post is convincing enough.


Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 28, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #143864

Apparently, it is racist to notice the strain on America’s educational system caused by the immigration problem.

Apparently, it is racist to notice the impending failure of state healthcare systems caused by the immigration problem.

Apprarently, it is racist to see the failure of our police to control the problems caused by the immigration problem.

Apparently, it is racist to object to over ten million people a year who violate the law and then demand rights because they were successful criminals.

In Mexico, it’s a felony to immigrate without benefit of paperwork punishable by jail time.

In Mexico, employers are legally required to give Mexican citizens preferential treatment in employment.

This issue is about economics, not racism. Defining it as a racial issue makes martyrs of people who knowingly violated US law by illegally entering the US and continue to violste the law by either working under false documents or working without complying with taxation codes.

Racial slurs are a handy tag for frustrated Americans and cries of racism are a convenient cover for illegals. Neither are appropriate.

The concept of a static barrier is criticized as unfeasible, unfriendly and unfair. Yet since Israel erected the dreaded wall, terrorist attacks associated with illegal border crossings have declined by over 70%.

Barriers constructed at the most likely entry points would redirect the illegal entries to areas that could be better patrolled and controlled by ICE.

America can and does benefit from additional workers, but the current system allows some parties to receive the benefits while putting the costs for these benefits on other parties. Unless we develop a realistic method of controlling immigration and distributing the economic costs incurred by serving illegal aliens, the social support systems in border states will fail. As a sovereign country, we have the right to control our borders. This is an American decision. Do we support the rule of law or not?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #143865

Jim T
That wall was built to keep people in. The present wall being talked about is to keep people out. I can elaborate on the difference if you care to hear me.

Andre M Hernandez
“…self-serving, cowardice, self-important, blowhard, bully, hypocritical, chickencrap nation we have become.”
Preach to yourself if you care to but I and many other people do not fit that description of these great United States. So when you use the word “we” spell it “wee” and look in the mirror.

Posted by: tomh at April 28, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #143866

tomh:

Did you mean the comment about the wall keeping people in for me? If you did and you are referring to the Israeli wall, I would like to hear what you have to say.

goodkingned

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #143873

Ron, the paradox of education is that on the one hand, it only takes a teacher with knowledge to share, and a willing student, both capable of communicating with each other, for learning to take place. On the other hand, congregating hundreds and thousands of students in a single building complex for the purpose of educating them with one teacher per 30 students, requires far, far more than just communication. The latter situation requires managment, security, materials, bathrooms, eating facilities, a disciplinary structure, etc. etc.

The trick is to make education of thousands of students with 100’s of teachers as efficient as possible as a willing teacher/willing student one to one relationship can accomodate. That is no easy feat, and will never be as efficient and productive as a one teacher one student setting. But, maximizing that efficiency such that the teacher and the students stay motivated and rewarded for their interaction, and ending with a young person equipped to enter the economy and society as a responsible and productive person, is the goal and responsibility of adminstrators and educators, parents and the students.

To the extent that School Board members can fashion policy and budgets and taxes to meet those goals, success will the theirs. It is obvious from your comments that this kind of success is what you seek, and that will be a positive thing for your community.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #143880

goodkingned
This was in reference to studing history and the Berlin Wall from Jim T.

I am in agreement with the Israeli wall comment you made.

Posted by: tomh at April 28, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #143883

Rocky, 10 years ago I sat down to a computer with Autocad software and the decision to build my own two story home with my own hands. When the day came to pour my foundation armed only with a portable cement mixer, and a mound of cement mix bags, I almost froze. Pouring that foundation by hand this way with only my wife to help, was going to take all day and part of the night of non-stop mixing, transfering, hauling and pouring of concrete. No lunch, dinner, or rest breaks allowed because wet cement had to be poured against wet cement, or the foundation would be weak and cracked. I had my first serious doubts about my ability to build my own home. But, with my wife’s belief in my ability to do anything I set my mind to, we began, we sweated, we strained, we bleed from the abrasions, and 15 hours later we were done, and it was done right and solid.

Solving the immigration problem has to begin with a properly ordered plan, and diving in to dig that first hole and plant that first pole, and stretch that first wire, and hire that first additional law enforcement person. Having begun and keeping heart, the immigration mess we have created for ourselves will get resolved. Get a plan, work up your resolve to succeed with it, and begin the heavy lifting. That is really all that is possible in the present, and if we commit to it, the future will yield the results we seek.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #143909

Andre M. Hernandez,

I am not miles away. i might just see ya this evening.

Posted by: lm at April 28, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #143916

Im,

I wish.

I refuse to stoop so far down and reward you for behaviors like Name-calling, swearing and EMPTY threats that are not tolerated in pre-k.
There is no reason for us to try to debate this issue because you seem unwilling to do so in a mature and respectful manner. There is no need to respond because I will not read it. Have a nice day and hopefully all the Mexicans will exit YOUR country quickly enough for your satisfaction.
Hopefully a great wall will be built, in Your honor, large enough to keep all the harmful, welfare grubbing people of color who steal your job.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 28, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #143929

Mr. Andre wrote:It will prevent other nations from confusing the United States of the past with the self-serving, cowardice,self-important, blowhard, bully, hypocritical, chickenshit nation we have become.
Those who want to hide from terror, go ahead. Don’t expect everyone else to do the same.

Now this is what I call a mature and respectful manner.

you prove my case everytime you type. keep it up.

Posted by: lm at April 28, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #143931

after years of gut wrenching,about the fence and reading hundreds of posts. i have to completely agree with people like David R. Remer, d.a.n. and goodkingned. this is not about race. please stop making it one. reading these posts for the last four months, there are a very few people who care more about the constitution than David R. Remer.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 28, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #143936

IM and Andre’, its getting personal, critique the message not the messenger.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at April 28, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #143940

Jim T., your example of the Berlin Wall argues against you. You should read your history. The Berlin Wall was so damned effective, only a few hundred persons ever made it over or under that wall in any year. It worked, all too well. That wall was not just a physical wall however, it was also an ideological wall and the ideology on one side of that wall was inhuman and inhumane.

A US southern border wall with legal checkpoints for controlling traffic across the wall is a very different kind of wall than the Berlin Wall, Obviously. It will not be designed to halt immigration, it will be designed to restore our nation’s choice over immigration, allowing immigrants who will add to our nation and society, and screening out those would harm or subtract from our nation and society, either through intent or sheer force of numbers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #143952

I remember when the federal government shut down (what was it, in 1992)?
Hell, did anyone even notice ?

Illegal aliens want to believe the U.S. would crumble with out them, but the fact is, the numerous problems stemming from massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration actually costs U.S. tax payers (net loss) well over $70 billion per year (not even including the cost of crime and increased crime rates) due to the following:

  • increased crime rates;

  • burden on education systems;

  • burden on healthcare systems;

  • burden on hospital systems;

  • burden on welfare systems; 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare (Jan-2004);

  • burden on Social Security system;

  • burden on Medicaid system;

  • burden on border patrol systems; ever increasing numbers are needed;

  • burden on insurance systems; illegal aliens can/will not pay for damages they cause;

  • burden on law enforcement systems; costing California billions per year;

  • burden on prison systems; 29% of prisoners in state and federal prisons are illegal aliens (Sep-2004);

  • burden on voting systems; voter fraud with fake ID;

At any rate, the borders need to be secured.
We’re not talking about a wall.
A wall is not needed.
Only a fence/road (see: www.WeNeedAFence.com) is all that is needed, and about 150,000 border patrol (three shifts; 50 thousand per shift; about one border patrol person per 634 feet for both the U.S./Canada and U.S. Mexico borders).
The fence/road will cost $8 billion the first year, and the border patrol and maintenance will cost $10 billion per year thereafter.
$10 billion is less than 10 days of interest on the National Debt.
$10 billion is far less than the $29 billion in 2006 or the $27.3 billion in 2005 for pork barrel.
$10 billion is far less than the net loss of $70 billion per year due to the numerous problems stemming from illegal immigration.

SOLUTION:

  • Secure the borders (with a mere 5.9% (i.e. 153,000 border patrol) of the total number of 2.6 million military, guard, and reserves; at a cost of $10 billion per year, which is far less than the current annual net losses of $70 billion due to illegal immigration)

  • Require enforcement of all immigration laws. Enforce the existing laws.

  • Require deportation of ALL illegal entries and visa overstays currently within our jails and prisons (i.e. within our custody).

  • Require ALL employers to use the Social Security Verification System for ALL hires.

  • Deny ALL illegal alien births automatic citizenship.

  • Deny ALL illegal aliens a FREE K-12 education.

  • Deny ALL illegal aliens ANY and ALL public benefits (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.)

  • Deny ALL illegal aliens driver’s licenses.

  • Deny ALL illegal aliens college tuition.

  • Verify ALL voter’s citizenship, before permission to vote. Biometrics could be helpful.

  • Provide $500 (per person) and pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S.

  • With no jobs or welfare, the remaining illegal aliens will leave voluntarily. Allow 12 months for all illegal aliens to leave on their own, with their own property. Those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. must get in line behind those already seeking to immigrate legally.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 28, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #143953

David I heard a comment on a local talk show today that made a lot of sense.

The speaker sugested that those illegals that that came in and could prove they had a job could stay temporarily pending a background check. Those caught without a job get shipped home to where ever home is. Felons when found go to jail pending deportation.
I would suggest a token fine for those that are already employed, but make it reasonable.
Open up the construction jobs to build the fence to those “guest workers” that signed in, so to speak, and pay a reasonable wage.

Nail all employers found to have illegals that aren’t signed up, and make the penalty stiff, really stiff.

The burden of proof needs to be on the employers.
There are those that are obviously illegal, but they’re getting hired anyway.
Call it a cost of doing business as Ron said.

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #143955

Dan,

“Deny ALL illegal alien births automatic citizenship.”

Of al the things you and I dissagree about, this is the one I don’t think will happen at all. I don’t think that you will be able to push this through Congress and have the states sign off on a Constitutional Ammendment

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #143957

d.a.n.

I like how you are thinking and it’s similar to what I posted last p.m. We need a few more to see the light.

Posted by: Terry C at April 28, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #143972

d.a.n.:

I also favor denying automatic citizenship to children born to mothers residing illegally in America. I know that this practice is not customary in other nations and I fail to see why the US doesn’t change this policy.

Automatic citizanship is a great incentive drawing illegals to the US. The addition of poverty stricken infant citizens and their similiarly impoverished parents are taking a toll on our tax base we can’t afford.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #143976

Ned,

“I know that this practice is not customary in other nations and I fail to see why the US doesn’t change this policy.”

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #143978
Rocky wrote: d.a.n,
“Deny ALL illegal alien births automatic citizenship.”
Of all the things you and I dissagree about, this is the one I don’t think will happen at all. I don’t think that you will be able to push this through Congress and have the states sign off on a Constitutional Ammendment.

Rocky,
I wouldn’t argue with you about the odds of it happening (i.e. getting the 14th Amendment changed). But, it’s just common sense. Many people don’t realize that tens of thousands of illegal aliens are running across the border just in time to have their baby in the U.S. so that they can now have an anchor-baby and get a blue passport to stay in the U.S. indefinitely, since their baby is now a U.S. citizen. What’s worse, is they land in our E.R.s and don’t pay. The U.S. tax payers get the bill, which is one of the reasons for skyrocketing healthcare costs, and hospital closings.

In Larado, Texas, there were over 4,000 births last year at the Laredo, TX Medical Center maternity ward. 3997 healthy, screaming new American citizens, of whom, half were born to illegal aliens. This scam is as old as the border itself. It is not fair to U.S. tax payers, or those that try to immigrate legally. Not to mention, U.S. tax payers pick up the tab for the E.R./hospital bill.

Sure, lots of people want to come to the U.S. and enjoy what we have built, but we can not make the pie bigger. If we continue to allow this problem to grow, there won’t be anything worth a damn left for us, and we’ll all be searching for a new target to descend upon, use up, and find a new target, etc., etc., etc.

Terry C
Thanks. Yes, I live in Texas, and there are over 1 million illegal aliens right here in the North East quadrant of Texas. I see the problems all the time, including the increased crime rates. Just last 13-Nov-2005, Brian Jackson, a Dallas policeman was shot and killed by an illegal alien, Juan Lizcano. Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girfriend to threaten her. As the police pursued Lizcano after he fled the woman’s home, he shot Officer Jackson, who died later in the hospital. Officer Jackson was remembered by his fellow police as someone who loved his job and always went the extra mile. That is a crime that should have never occurred.

Our do-nothing government is complicit in creating this problem, and slumbering voters allowed it. Unfortunately, I think this entire issue will dissappear shortly after the November elections. The pain levels just aren’t quite bad enough yet to make voters give a damn, and by the time they do, it will be too late.

I bet they give ‘em amnesty, ignore the problem, or still refuse to enforce the law, and like the 3+ million given amnesty in 1986 that turned into the current 12 million … those 12 million will turn into 48 million, and we’ll all be sayin’ (again), that amnesty thing didn’t work out too well.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 28, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #143982

Dan,

A good cure for the border jumping and a way to get around the Posse Comitas rule would be to have our troops on constant training at or around the border.

One thing that I still don’t get is your welfare statistic.

32% seems an awfull lot, and while I know where you got your number, where did they get that statistic?
Illegals seem to want to evade capture and shy away from government agencies.
So where does the government get this figure?

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #143984

My, my, my…aren’t we all just illegal immigrant haters.
Your right, we should make the living conditions for illegal immigrants in the United States to a near poverty level, just like their home country; maybe after they have starved for a couple of weeks and can’t get any medical treatment when injured they will go back.
This policy seems to be what alot of us seem to advocate, it’s as if we think illegals aren’t even humans but subhumans. Jeez, typical xenophobic ranting.

d.a.n.
Stop trying to insinuate that since a FEW illegals are criminals, that all of them are murderers, drunks, and bandits.

Posted by: greenstuff at April 28, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #143985

i agree with rocky. to ammend that 1982 supreme court ruling, with all likelihood,would be just about impossible. but would it be nessecary, if we went with david’s good common sense approach posted by David R Remer at april 28th 5.04 pm. ?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 28, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #143988

Rocky, we agree on almost of those recommendations you heard on the program. But, they don’t address the demand problem and supply problem. The demand is to enter the U.S. in ever growing numbers, the supply is the open bordered access to a higher quality of life for naught but cost of crossing a river or dirt road.

Fail to control the supply, and the demand will become infinite, overwhelming our resources and bringing our quality of life down to equality with Central American’s quality of life. That simply cannot be allowed to happen. We have found some common ground. Now let’s erect a supply controlling fence or other traffic deterrent mechanismon it before the problem gets out of hand that land mines become the only solution.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #143994
greenstuffed wrote: My, my, my…aren’t we all just illegal immigrant haters.
Great! It never fails, some one starts screaming XENOPHOBES ! RACISTS ! NAZIS !
greenstuffed wrote: d.a.n. Stop trying to insinuate that since a FEW illegals are criminals, that all of them are murderers, drunks, and bandits.

I never insinuated they were all criminals. In fact, I clearly stated (many times) that only 29% of all prisoners are illegal aliens.
Since when did 29% become equal to 100% ?

Maybe you’re just not too good at math?

FYI: 29% is not as you stated: all of them. All of them would be 100%. Get it?

It’s not xenophobia, or about race, color, ethnicity, or nationality. That’s just the usual tired, ignorant, lame excuse always used by those that don’t want to talk about the real, negative problems stemming from massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration, which is the real issue. Try addressing the issues (if you can). Calling others xenophobes only demonstrate one’s own ignorance.

Most Americans want the problem resolved.

The rights of foreigners, that illegally trespass our borders, do not trump the rights of a sovereign nation to secure their own border.

The U.S. is not for the public use of the rest of the world no more than your home is for the public use by anyone that isn’t invited.

Also, if you’d read my SOLUTION above, you’d notice that I’m not talking about brutally deporting people by force. However, the magnets that attract illegal aliens here need to be denied to illegal aliens, because the abuse of our systems is costing U.S. tax payers $70 billion (not even including the cost of the crime and increased crime rates).

Posted by: d.a.n at April 28, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #143995
And what is the telephone number for immigration?
Gee when I called immagration to tell them the hotel where I worked was housing and employee nearly a dozen illagal immagrants they told me “We don’t respond to reports of illegal aliens” He also told me I could be in “big trouble” if I tried to pursue this further. I’m surprised he didn’t say “Heil Bush” at the end of the conversation. Posted by: texxs at April 28, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #144003
Rocky wrote: d.a.n, A good cure for the border jumping and a way to get around the Posse Comitas rule would be to have our troops on constant training at or around the border.
Or, they could merely be transferred to the current Border Patrol. Simply grow the current Border Patrol. I seriously doubt the states will complain about it. Also, there is an exclusion clause in the Posse Comitatus Act. By federal law, federal troops can not enter a state without permission from the governor of the state. Arizona, California, and New Mexico have already declared the problem a state emergency, but were ignored by the federal government.
Rocky wrote: One thing that I still don’t get is your welfare statistic. 32% seems an awfull lot, and while I know where you got your number, where did they get that statistic? Illegals seem to want to evade capture and shy away from government agencies. So where does the government get this figure?

Rocky, They are more brazen than you think.
Just look at the protests and what is planned for Monday?
In Dallas, protest participants stormed onto the trains without paying.
Does any of that strike you as shy ?

Rocky, I’ve been using the more conservative 32%, but it is now estimated to be as high as 42%. In California alone, 50% of all welfare usage is by immigrant households, and 32% of all illegal-immigrant households receive benefits from at least one welfare program. The average welfare payment (just counting the four major welfare programs) to illegal-immigrant households is $1,400 a year. That is $8.4 billion for California alone.
_________________________
Lou Dobbs (CNN) reported that 36% to 42% of illegal aliens receive welfare.
_______________
The percentages were lower in 1997, but GAO Report GAO-HEHS-98-30 shows the majority of welfare being recevied by illegal aliens in California, Arizona, and Texas.
_______________
Some of the total costs can be extrapolated from some studies in a few states such as California, Texas, and Florida
_______________

32% was the accepted figure for a long time (since 2003).
Some are now saying it is as high as 36% to 42%
I’ll try to find more sources.
However, the government seems to try to hide this type of data for some reason. Many times, it takes a bit of work to pick through the GAO reports to find the data, as if they’re trying to hide intentionally. I think that may be because the government has been trying to ignore the problem (like so many others) for as long as possible

Posted by: d.a.n at April 28, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #144012

d.a.n. you are absolutely correct. Only problem you will have with the ones you are debating with is you confuse them with facts. you will have to deal in feelings, warm fuzzies, ect. to get their attention. they do not do good with facts.

Posted by: lm at April 28, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #144020

Dan,

“However, the government seems to try to hide this type of data for some reason. Many times, it takes a bit of work to pick through the GAO reports to find the data, as if they’re trying to hide intentionally. I think that may be because the government has been trying to ignore the problem (like so many others) for as long as possible”

I would think the government in the current climate should have this info front and center.

“The average welfare payment (just counting the four major welfare programs) to illegal-immigrant households is $1,400 a year. That is $8.4 billion for California alone”

Now I did the math and your numbers seem a little strange to me.

If your estimate average of $1,400. a year is correct, if every single one of the 12.4 million recieved that much money from welfare, that only works out to $17,360,000,000. total for all.

How does that jibe with your 8.4 billion figure?

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #144028

d.a.n.
Wow! Your calling me ignorant; how hypocritical!
Yes, I’m ignorant because I care about the illegals who work hard everyday to offer their families a better life than one in their home country, where they barely have enough to eat.
Yes, I’m ignorant because I want to share the American dream, where no matter where you came from or who you are, with hard work and unyeilding determination one can be successful.
Yes, I’m ignorant because I SEE THE PLIGHT OF THESE ILLEGALS, WHO WANT TO BECOME AMERICAN CITIZENS BUT HAVE NO ROAD TO SUCH A STATUS.

Also what you previously said about “Deny ALL illegal alien births automatic citizenship”, you’re joking right; one of the fundamental rights to citizenship should be revoked JUST BECAUSE OF SOMEONE’S PARENT’S STATUS. Once one is born on the soil of a certain country, he or she becomes a native the country, very clean and simple.

Oh, and by the way, you are a xenophobe, you’re scared of the illegal immigrants, your afraid that their culture will take over, that they will become dominant, that their decendants will become the MAJORITY! OH NO, WHITES NOT BEING THE MAJORITY!!! HOW TRAGIC!!!

Posted by: greenstuff at April 28, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #144029

Rocky
Maybe the illegals don’t intend to make a mockery of our immigration laws, but they’re doing just that along with the folks that are for amnesty.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 28, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #144032

A Day Without an Immigrant is on May 1st.

I urge you all to keep your businesses open during this time. We must show these illegals that we can function just fine without them. Order your employees to attend work. If they are absent, FIRE them!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 28, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #144033

David
On your 3:05 post to me, I agree 100% with you.
On your 3:15 post to Rocky, again I agree.
And your to be congratulated on having the guts to build your own house. I did most the work on mine about 20 years ago. It was a lot of work but I didn’t have the nerve to pour the foundation.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 28, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #144038

whites not being the majority? criminal immigrants taking over?

That is what happened in Mexico to the Aztec. See what you have now, crime, kidnapping for insurance ransom, the most anti immigrant culture on earth and did I mention the most corrupt law enforcement todate.

one thing for sure no matter what else happens the cockroaches will still run when the lights are turned on.

Posted by: lm at April 29, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #144045

Rocky,
Your number of $17.36 billion is even bigger than the $8.4 billion I stated?
But, I did make a mistake.
That $8.4 billion is wrong (that included other costs).
The cost of the welfare for illegal aliens for California is about $1 billion. Since California has an estimated 3.5 million illegal aliens, and 32% (about 1 million) receive welfare, the total cost of welfare is about $1 billion (based on $1400 per household).

The total net loss (after all taxes, estimated value of labor, etc.) for California is about $10.5 billion.

Consider the net losses for for 1996 nationwide:

That was 10 years ago.
Now, it is $10.5 for California alone.
Do the math on that.
Add it up for Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
Consider the net losses for cost of education alone for various states for illegal aliens in year 2004:

The total nation-wide loss is estimated to be about $70 billion. Based on only California’s $10.5 billion, and lesser amounts for Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, that could easily add up to $30 or $40 billion. But, those are not the only states with illegal aliens. Many exist in large cities all across the U.S. And, if the cost of crime and increased crime rates was factored in also, the net losses can only grow larger.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #144046

Thanks, Ron. I wouldn’t ever try to do it again, I don’t mind saying. Experience is the best teacher though.

Greenstuff, it is a fine and noble quality to be compassionate for the plight of others. I pray you never lose that quality. There is however, a place for reality when it comes to discussing immigration policy or the absence of any.

I just watched a program that followed illegal immigrants in an in depth story of a couple of illegals and their families and a couple of Americans who are working to halt the illegal immigration. First a couple facts brought out in the program. Georgia is becoming the magnet for illegal immigrants more than any other southern state. For the last year figures are available, illegals paid in 16 million in taxes and they incurred 26.1 million in tax subsidized services including legal services, schools, and emergency medical and Medicare services (one food service worker single wage earner making $25,000. had already racked up $80,000 in medical bills for his wife with ovarian cancer and many thousands more for his son who required an appendectomy).

Now the reality question is highlighted in the following hypothetical: You and your spouse make $30,000 a year in America. You have a choice. You can have one child and do reasonably well by that child raising them in America on $30,000 a year income. Or, because you love children, you can adopt 50 children on your $30,000 a year and destroy most of their lives with your love which has not the means to do right by their rearing and support.

That is America’s debate over immigration. We are a compassionate nation. But, there are limits to our resources to do right by all of our nation’s inhabitants and America, as wealthy as it is already has problems with poverty and crime, and social injustice. Adding millions and millions and millions more low income undereducated immigrants to our system will not do right by them or our nation in the long run if we allow our compassion to drain our resources needed to support those we adopt.


Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #144047

Its what I kept saying from the beginning!!! This is straight from the “Gangs of New York” movie!!!

The only way to maintain America’s Identity and Soul is to confront the foriegn hordes face to face!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 29, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #144055
greenstuffed wrote: d.a.n. Wow! Your calling me ignorant; how hypocritical!
I never said you were ignorant. But, now that you bring it up …
greenstuffed wrote: Yes, I’m ignorant because …
Finally ! We agree on something.
greenstuffed wrote: Yes, I’m ignorant because I care about the illegals who work hard everyday to offer their families a better life than one in their home country, where they barely have enough to eat.
Well, that’s just fine greenstuff. Why don’t you come and let them all come live with you, stay a while, invite a few friends. Should they get your permission first? What? No? Well…who’s the hypocrite now ?

greenstuff,
I don’t mind saying one bit that I do not want illegal aliens coming to the U.S. to abuse our laws, and burdening our education, welfare, healthcare, prisons, law enforcement, and voting systems. Why? Because it is not theirs to take. Most illegal aliens come to work, but 29% of all prisoners are illegal aliens and 32% of all illegal aliens receive welfare. So, the American dream for many seems to be welfare and crime.

greenstuffed wrote: Yes, I’m ignorant because I want to share the American dream, where no matter where you came from or who you are, with hard work and unyeilding determination one can be successful. Yes, I’m ignorant because I SEE THE PLIGHT OF THESE ILLEGALS, WHO WANT TO BECOME AMERICAN CITIZENS BUT HAVE NO ROAD TO SUCH A STATUS.
Then let them come live with you. Who the hell are you to make that decision for me? Perhaps the rest of us don’t believe as you do: that we can all live at the expense of everyone else.
greenstumped wrote: Oh, and by the way, you are a xenophobe, you’re scared of the illegal immigrants, your afraid that their culture will take over, that they will become dominant, that their decendants will become the MAJORITY! OH NO, WHITES NOT BEING THE MAJORITY!!! HOW TRAGIC!!!

greenstuffed,
See, that’s the best you can do.
Call people names.
XENOPHOBEs !, RACISTs !, NAZIs !,

And, I knew you would finally get around to playing the race card, as evidenced by your statement:

greenstuff wrote:
OH NO, WHITES NOT BEING THE MAJORITY!!! HOW TRAGIC!!!

That statement is quite revealing.
It reveals your own deeply engrained racism and ignorance.
You do not even know what color I am.
Not that it makes any difference.
Not to me. Color, race, ethnicity is unimportant.

greenstuff,
You reveal your own racism by your assumption that whites are fearful of illegal aliens, as evidenced by your statememt:

greenstuff wrote:
OH NO, WHITES NOT BEING THE MAJORITY!!!

greenstuff,
Just because people are opposed to illegal immigration, that does not make them as you say: xenophobes, racists, whites afraid of losing the majority, etc.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #144078

d.a.n and greenstuff,

Another personal attack by either of you will result in the loss of your comment privileges on this site. Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. This will be the only warning.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at April 29, 2006 3:21 AM
Comment #144083

Ok… well some crazy stuff going on here but there are Two actual issues I want to address and hope someone will respond to the issues.

1) When you calculate the costs, why are you not incorporating the work done? What is the value of the labor performed? I have seen the value estimated as high as 136 billion. Tomorrow I’ll look for the link and post it.

2) They aren’t taxed? What about the fact they work for 20%-50% of minimum wages… seems like they are paying a tax of 50%-80% to work here “illegally” and those savings are directly passed on to corporate America which then uses those funds for reinvestment.

Posted by: Xander Jones at April 29, 2006 3:40 AM
Comment #144090

Xander:

They aren’t taxed? What about the fact they work for 20%-50% of minimum wages… seems like they are paying a tax of 50%-80% to work here “illegally” and those savings are directly passed on to corporate America which then uses those funds for reinvestment.
- Posted by: Xander Jones at April 29, 2006 03:40 AM

I don’t think the point above accurately reflects the situation. Most illegal workers do not work for below minimum wage. However, because they are willing to work for less than the going rate for legal workers, they drive the industry wages down. Remember that employers can still save money paying illegals a decent wage because they do not have make contributions to the government for social security, occupational health insurance or unemployment for workers not on the books.

Also, I think it is inaccurate to characterize the sort of employers who rely on undocumented labor as Corporate America. With the exception of migrant farm labor, corporations usually have too much supervision and procedural guidelines to actually hire totally undocumented labor. Illegals working for corporations usually do so with false documentation and their employers save no money by hiring them.

Most undocumented workers work in small businesses and there is no proof that their employer is using any of his saved labor costs to invest in anything more significant than a new bass boat. Anyway, if the government wanted the employers to take income tax revenue and reinvest it at will under the honor system, they would change the tax code to reflect this desire. It is not up to employers or employees what to do with money that is owed to the government.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 29, 2006 4:45 AM
Comment #144102

David
I wouldn’t try it again either.
Unfortunately Georgia is a magnet for illegals for some reason. Used to be the joke was that Atlanta was little Africa because it was a magnet for middle class Blacks. Now it’s starting to look like little Mexico.
Their aren’t very many illegals that stay in this part of Georgia. But they come through during peak times for farming. Planting and harvest.
The crime rate usually goes up when they come through and it can get hard to get treatment at the hospital during that time.
I didn’t see the program you were talking about and don’t know if it mentioned how the illegals were employed. Most work either in construction, farming, or lawn care. All are paid under the table and get paid $2-$3/hr less than their American counterparts. Of course there’s not taxes or other deductions taken out of their checks.
Just a matter of interest, maybe. Just about all the illegals employed in lawn care are working for Mexicans that are here legally.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 29, 2006 7:49 AM
Comment #144109
Xander Jones wrote: 1) When you calculate the costs, why are you not incorporating the work done? What is the value of the labor performed? I have seen the value estimated as high as 136 billion. Tomorrow I’ll look for the link and post it.

Good question. Some studies have estimated the net profit of labor and taxes, and the total cost to U.S. tax payers was still a net loss. The problem is that many of the profits are not passed on to consumers. Profits go mostly to CEOs and a few major stock holders. That is why corporations are realizing 45 year high profit levels, while U.S. citizens have seen median wages falling for the last 6 consecutive years. Only a few are profiting most from it. But, huge costs (i.e. education, healthcare, law enforcement, insurance, prison, voting, welfare, Social Security, and Medicare systems) are being pushed onto tax payers, and the federal government is complicit, because irresponsible incumbent politicians want votes and cheap labor for their big-money-donor puppeteers.

Xander Jones wrote: 2) They aren’t taxed? What about the fact they work for 20%-50% of minimum wages…
Yes, about 50% of illegal aliens do pay income taxes using fake Social Security numbers. It’s questionable whether profits realized by corporations are used for reinvestment or passed onto consumers.
Xander Jones wrote: What about the fact they work for 20%-50% of minimum wages… seems like they are paying a tax of 50%-80% to work here “illegally” and those savings are directly passed on to corporate America which then uses those funds for reinvestment.
That’s a common misconception. Many work for low wages, but many do not. With fake Social Security numbers, about 50% are able to get higher paying jobs. Here are some things that are not even accurately accounted for that would significantly increase the total cost to U.S. tax payers:
  • they huge and devastating cost of crime and increased crime rates;
  • U.S. workers displaced by illegal aliens;
  • subsequent welfare benefits to displaced U.S. workers;
  • cost of bilingual education;
  • school feeding/lunch programs;
  • increased insurance costs;
  • increased property taxes;
  • U.S. citizens unable to receive medical care due to E.R.s and hospitals overrun by illegal aliens;
  • cost of disease; one illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”;
  • voting in our elections;
  • cost of over burdened Border Patrol and INS;

There are not many (if any) comprehensive studies and reports to account for everything, but the many reports in different areas add up to an overwhelming net loss to U.S. tax payers. The net taxes paid and net profits of illegal aliens are far overshadowed by the net losses to U.S. tax payers, because the profits of cheap labor are realized only by a very few that employ illegal aliens.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #144110
goodkingned wrote: I don’t think the point above accurately reflects the situation. Most illegal workers do not work for below minimum wage. However, because they are willing to work for less than the going rate for legal workers, they drive the industry wages down.
Yes, very good point. That’s how U.S. citizens are displaced.
goodkingned wrote: Also, I think it is inaccurate to characterize the sort of employers who rely on undocumented labor as Corporate America. With the exception of migrant farm labor, corporations usually have too much supervision and procedural guidelines to actually hire totally undocumented labor. Illegals working for corporations usually do so with false documentation and their employers save no money by hiring them.
Yes, and what profits that are realized by the employer, are not passed onto U.S. tax payers. CEOs and a few stockholders reap most of the profits.
goodkingned wrote: Most undocumented workers work in small businesses and there is no proof that their employer is using any of his saved labor costs to invest in anything more significant than a new bass boat.
Right. Profits go mostly to CEOs and a few stockholders. But, if you believe in trickle-down economics, you could say purchases by those few helped the U.S. economy? Not much, since less and less of it is manufactured in the U.S. The net benefits are far exceeded by the net losses. Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #144116

David,

OK…so if my analogy of the Berlin Wall is not appropriate…

How about the Great Wall Of China. That was built to keep out the invading Mongol hoards. How well did that work?

It didn’t.

My point being, walls have never worked. They have discouraged, they have impededed, but never stopped anyone.

Walls are like burglar alarms. They slow down…but do not completely stop…those that are bent on bypassing them.

I still say “Buy Mexico”. Until they are all American citizens, everything we do is just delaying the inevitable and wasting our money.

Posted by: Jim T at April 29, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #144120

Jim T,
You are correct that a wall is not 100% effective.
A wall is unnecessary, since a patrolled fence/road is all that is needed. The inital cost would be about $8 billion, and the cost thereafter would be about $10 billion per year for three shifts (total of $153,000 border patrol). The $10 billion per year is less than the net losses per year for California alone.
Also, the magnets and freebies (education, healthcare, welfare, etc.) that lure illegal aliens here need to be eliminated.

But, don’t worry.
All of the pro-illegal alien supporters and lobbyists have nothing to worry about, because our do-nothing, FOR-SALE, bought-and-paid-for government will never do anything. Even if they pass new laws, they will not be enforced anymore than the current laws are. The federal government has created conflicting laws. It says trespassing our borders without permission is illegal, but once here, the government forces states to provide education, healthcare, welfare, voting privileges, and driving privileges to illegal aliens. And, many, even when arrested for various other crimes, are released over and over, letting them know that they can break our laws all they want. They are essentially guaranteed immunity. Some have been deported dozens of times. Some are arrested many times for drunk driving, and even after killing someone, some are allowed to get away with it. Illegal aliens are released so often, it encourages them to commit more crimes, because they know they can get away with it, over and over. A GAO-5646R Report indicated that a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens had an average arrest record of 13 arrests per illegal alien.

This entire illegal immigration issue was so important, congress went on vacation without resolving it. Not that they ever will, anyway.

This entire subject will be forgotten immediately after the November elections.

Both Democrats and Republicans will get their way. They want votes and cheap labor. And the American tax payer gets screwed (as usual; nothing new there). We are importing crime, poverty, and disease, and bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians don’t care if the tax payers get screwed. To irresponsible incumbent politicians, that’s exactly what tax payers are for. The more, the better.

Illegal aliens will get amnesty, and we will see 12 million illegal aliens turn into 48 million, and the $70 billion in annual net losses will turn into $300 billion (just like the 3+ million given amnesty in 1986 turned into 12+ million).

Before long, everyone will be riding in the wagon, and no one will be pushing it, and we will finally prove that we really can’t all live at the expense of everyone else.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #144140

d.a.n.
You keep hollering about how illegals are sucking up the American taxpayer’s money since the illegals themselves don’t pay taxes.
This can be every easily solved, give the illegals a way to be legal immigrants or even citizens. If these illegals were citizens or even immigrants with green cards, they would pay their taxes and to the state and Federal gov’t.

Posted by: greenstuff at April 29, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #144143

Jack,

I feel like a broken record on this issue. The reason for the boycot from latinos here as well as from Mexican purchases, is to drive home how much we NEED them. Nobody seems to be calculating that these days. All the politicians in Washington are merely ranting and stirring up paranoia with which they intend to motivate voters to their cause in November. It DISGUSTS me. I wish to beleive the American people are to smart for this tactic, but only November will tell the tale.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #144145

d.a.n. my wife, is a comptroller for a speciality construction company. three foreman told her friday they would be out sick on monday. here’s the rub, there all legal they have all been here for generations,they make $41 a hour prevailing wages plus 6-8 hrs a week overtime, that’s $2,132 per week my friend. and full medical and dental,and profit sharing and they also drive company trucks and take them home. also 3 weeks paid vacation a year. plus holidays and 9 paid sick days a year. sounds like a three day weekend to me!and they get paid for it! solidarity my ass.! there spoiled!

Posted by: jim c at April 29, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #144146

Oh….and Jack,


THEY ARE PAYING TAXES!!!!

Yes. That’s right d.a.n., the illegals (I’ll refer to them as ‘Undocumented’ since the reason they pay taxes is to try and become citizens in the first place), ARE PAYING TAXES.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #144150
greenstuff wrote: d.a.n. You keep hollering about how illegals are sucking up the American taxpayer’s money since the illegals themselves don’t pay taxes.

greenstuff,
Who’s hollering?

First of all, I have never said illegal aliens do not pay any taxes. Many times, I have written that about 50% of illegal aliens do pay taxes. But, we’re not talking about high paying jobs or lots of taxes anyway.

There are many valid reasons why illegal immigration is detrimental, and why giving amnesty will simply multiply the problem as it did after the amnesty of 1986.

3+ million illegal aliens granted amnesty in 1986 resulted in what we are witnessing now; the problem quadrupled to 12+ million, because those illegal aliens that received amnesty then promptly invited their 20 relatives to come here legally too. They thanked us for our gratitude by harboring more illegal aliens.

So, the solution you mentioned has already been tried, and the results, as you can see, were disastrous.

I’d like to make something crystal clear. This is not about blaming or wanting to punish illegal aliens that merely want to come here to look for work only.

The blame belongs with our irresponsible government, greedy corporations and employers of illegal aliens, and slumbering voters that allowed all of it.
Our government and greedy corporations lured them here for cheap labor and votes. So, we practically invited them here.
But, the U.S. citizens are getting used.
The U.S. citizens are footing the bill of over $70 billion per year (which is a very conservative figure, since it does not even include crime and disease).
How is that fair to U.S. tax payers?

Still, we can not let everyone come here, and use and abuse what we have built, because it won’t be long before there is nothing for anyone. It is the very same reason you don’t open up your home to illegal aliens to come live with you, stay a while, and invite a few friends.

But, more importantly, We also owe a duty, first, to our fellow U.S. American citizens who are suffering and dying due to illegal aliens.

Los Angeles ERs and hospitals are over-run with illegal aliens (most that don’t pay) while U.S. citizens go without (and die). U.S. citizens go without because 32% of all illegal aliens receive welfare. U.S. tax payers pay a huge price for the loss of life, crime, and cost of law enforcement and prison due to illegal aliens making up 29% of all prisoners in our state and federal prisons.

The rights of foreigners, that illegally trespass our borders, do not trump the rights of a sovereign nation to secure their own border. That’s why illegal immigration is “illegal”. It’s just plain common sense. Especially if government is going to give away the farm in the pursuit for votes and a cheap-labor underclass.

The U.S. is not for the public use of the rest of the world no more than your home is for the public use by anyone that isn’t invited. We must enforce the existing laws and prosecute those that illegally employ illegal trespassers.

  • Where is the companssion for the 3.6 people murdered every day by an illegal alien (Source: GAO-05-646R based on study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period)
  • Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers?
  • Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources and 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ?
  • Where is the compassion for the illegal aliens being lured here for sub-minimum wage jobs, creating an under-class (practically slavery) ?
  • Where is the outrage of the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?
  • Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens (29% of all prisoners are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising.
  • Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”. Because illegal alien migration into the USA continues unabated for the past 20 years, we now have 16,000 new cases of incurable MDR tuberculosis in the past five years. We suffer 7,000 new cases of leprosy. We tolerate 100,000 new cases of hepatitis “A” in our society. Chagas Disease, which affects 14 million South Americans and kills 50,000 annually, streams across our borders as unchecked thousands of them enter our society. If you child goes to public school, they could be exposed, as thousands already have been.
  • Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers that lose many tens of billions per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?
  • Where is the compassion for all of the U.S. policemen murdered by illegal aliens? On 13-Nov-2005, Brian Jackson, a Dallas policeman was shot and killed by an illegal alien, Juan Lizcano. Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girfriend to threaten her. As the police pursued Lizcano after he fled the woman’s home, he shot Officer Jackson, who died later in the hospital. Officer Jackson was remembered by his fellow police as someone who loved his job and always went the extra mile. In Denver, Colorado, an illegal deliberately ran over a Denver polceman in a school cross walk “breaking his legs along with severe internal injuries. This is not anectdotal. This tragedy has occurred over and over in many cities across the U.S.
  • Where is the compassion for all of the people that do not want to see a repeat of 11-Sep-2001, perpetrated by several illegal aliens ?
  • In view of all that above, how could anyone use the excuse that the U.S. would crumble (economically) without cheap labor? Even if it were true (which it isn’t), does that justify a sub-minimum-wage under-class ? The economy would not crumble, as much as some want to believe it, since the majority of those done by illegal aliens are low-wage, low-skill jobs, and would not generate much in tax revenue, even if half those that don’t pay taxes started paying taxes. Even if it were true, does it justify the perpetuation of an under-paid under-class?? Are we all going to be like Senator Linsey Graham (R-SC) who said: “as a golfer, I probably benefit from their [illegal aliens] labor.” ? Nevermind that S.C. has the highest rate of violent crime (excluding D.C.) of any state in the U.S. and it is largely due to illegal aliens.

But, don’t worry.
Our do-nothing, FOR-SALE, bought-and-paid-for government will never do anything about this issue, and even if they pass new laws, they will not be enforced anymore than the current laws are.

This entire subject will be forgotten immediately after the November elections.

Both Democrats and Republicans will get their way, they’ll both get the votes and cheap labor they want, regardless of the fact that most American citizens want secured borders, and no amnesty.

Illegal aliens will get amnesty, and we will see the problem multiply again, as it did after the amnesty of 1986 for 3+ million illegal aliens.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #144154
RGF wrote:

THEY ARE PAYING TAXES!!!!
Yes. That’s right d.a.n., the illegals (I’ll refer to them as “Undocumented” since the reason they pay taxes is to try and become citizens in the first place), ARE PAYING TAXES.

RGF, greenstuff,
Only about 50% pay taxes, and we are not talking about high paying jobs, so the tax is negligible and net losses (which don’t even include the cost of crime and disease), even 10 years ago (in 1996), still, far exceeded the benefits. The net losses (still not even including the cost of crime and disease) now are over $70 billion per year

But, like I keep saying … don’t worry.
This entire issue will be forgotten immediately after the November elections. Aren’t you curious why this issue suddenly become headline news? The problem has been growing for decades. It has already been an election issue before. Did anything come of it (aside from amnesty in 1986, which multiplied the problem)? No, we are most likely wasting our time getting worked up into a frency about this (which irresponsible incumbent politicians just love to do), because nothing will come of it. Irresponsible incumbent politicians are just using it to get votes and divide the voters.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #144157

d.a.n.,

All of the pro-illegal alien supporters and lobbyists have nothing to worry about, because our do-nothing, FOR-SALE, bought-and-paid-for government will never do anything. Even if they pass new laws, they will not be enforced anymore than the current laws are.


God, that is so sad…but so very true.

Posted by: Jim T at April 29, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #144162

d.a.n.,

You just are NOT getting it at all. Your silly bullet points, your 50% satistic…MORE CRIME STATS???!!!

I guess you just did not understand the last time I called out on this. so I’ll say it a little for forcefully:

YOU CANNOT GOVERN BY STATISTICS! YOU CANNOT HOLD ENTIRE RACES OF PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR CRIMES COMMITTED ANY MERE PERCENTAGE OF THEM! YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO PRETEND THERE IS ANY RLEVANCE AT ALL TO HOW WE HANDLE IMMIGRATION AS A RESULT OF ANY PERCENTAGE OF CRIMINALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF ANY IMMIGRATN GROUP WHATSOEVER!

Why? you may well ask, is that it flies in the face of the very system of laws which defines us Americans, as a free nation, a just people, inheriters of English common law and the precept of innocence until proven guilt.

WE ABSOLUTELY MUST, MUST MUST MUST, trreat immigrants first as immigrants, and criminals as criminals. ONLY where they they overlap, do we implement immigration law and either deal with them ourselves or send them back according to the precepts of our laws.

WE ABSOLUTELY MUST keep these things separate. No choice. Otherwise we have no America left to worry about in the first place. Its just that simple. Please tell me you get it now, I’m tired of sounding like a broken record on this.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #144164

I just got to ask this question, it’s rhetorical but I’d just love to see the answers it gets:


Why is it that so many who call themselves conservative have so little understanding of America, what got us where we are and the nature and purpose of our system of laws… and thus do so much to undermine the very foundations of our great nation? Why?


This begs more questions: Have we dropped the ball for so long with respect to prioritizing education that we now have a whole generation of adults that have no background at all in American civics? What’s going on that anybody should grow up in this country and think that statistics are an appropriate foundation for judging individuals according to our laws? Perhaps the injustices endured by the colonists are now too far behind us for even a cultural memory to have survived. Perhaps…the re-invigoration of appreciation for our nation and it’s laws that arrives within the hope of new immigrants to our nation is the very lifeblood that keeps our nation whole, complete, vital and free. Think about it.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #144165

d.a.n.,

The stats about education costs are both disengenous and meaningless.

THOSE ARE FUTURE AMERICANS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

Perhaps you are advocating for the further reduction in priority for the education of future Americans?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #144166

Definitions

CRIME

Noun

1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality

CRIMINAL

Ajective:

1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
3. Guilty of crime.
4. Characteristic of a criminal.

Therefore, a person who crosses our borders without the proper authority has committed a crime. That leads me to believe that person is to be considered a criminal. Conclusion - all illegal aliens are then criminals and are subject to all associated punishment!!!

NO AMNESTY, NO HANDOUTS, NO GUEST WORKER PROGRAMS, NO JOBS, NO BIRTH RIGHTS. NO REASON TO BE IN OR COME TO THE USA ILLEGALLY!!! (This includes any race, etc.)

Hang in there d.a.n.

Posted by: Terry C at April 29, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #144167
God, that is so sad…but so very true.
Jim T, Yes it is. By the time slumbering voters wake up, the transfer of all assets will be complete. Politicians have sold us out, and we allowed it. We are suffering the consequences of our own negligence.

jim c,
There’s definitely something wrong with this picture. So, Monday, we are essentially going to be evinced as to how the U.S. will crumble?
Is this how one asks for citizenship?

RGF wrote: d.a.n., You just are NOT getting it at all. Your silly bullet points, your 50% satistic…MORE CRIME STATS???!!! I guess you just did not understand the last time I called out on this.
You called me out? I’m shakin’ in my boots.
RGF wrote: So I’ll say it a little for forcefully: YOU CANNOT GOVERN BY STATISTICS! YOU CANNOT HOLD ENTIRE RACES OF PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR CRIMES COMMITTED ANY MERE PERCENTAGE OF THEM! YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO PRETEND THERE IS ANY RLEVANCE AT ALL TO HOW WE HANDLE IMMIGRATION AS A RESULT OF ANY PERCENTAGE OF CRIMINALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF ANY IMMIGRATN GROUP WHATSOEVER!

RGF,
No need to shout.
I understood what you said, but disagree with what you say.
Since I last checked, that’s my right whether anyone likes it or not.
And, I never brought race into it at all.
Many others try to turn it into a race, color, ethnicity issue no matter how often I say it isn’t.
Illegal aliens are of all races.
The increased crime rates are simply the classic result of massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration.
That’s all.
As I’ve said many times, that does not mean all illegal aliens are violent criminals. I’m just saying the the crime can not be ignored, because those are crimes that should have never occurred.

RGF wrote: Why? you may well ask, is that it flies in the face of the very system of laws which defines us Americans, as a free nation, a just people, inheriters of English common law and the precept of innocence until proven guilt.
I agree. Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. That’s the law.
RGF wrote: WE ABSOLUTELY MUST, MUST MUST MUST, trreat immigrants first as immigrants, and criminals as criminals. ONLY where they they overlap, do we implement immigration law and either deal with them ourselves or send them back according to the precepts of our laws.
I agree again. The law should be enforced. Immigrants that came here illegally are criminals, but that crime (the first time) is a misdemeanor. Of more concern are the violent crimes, which are double the rate of American citizens. 3.6 people in the U.S. are murdered by an illegal alien every day.
RGF wrote: WE ABSOLUTELY MUST keep these things separate. No choice. Otherwise we have no America left to worry about in the first place. Its just that simple. Please tell me you get it now, I’m tired of sounding like a broken record on this.
I understand everything you say. I simply disagree with it. You may believe what you want, and I will believe what I want. If you want to change my mind, you’re going to have to start convincing me why U.S. tax payers should be abused? Sure, they deserve it for being too lazy to stop it in the first place, but that does not mean they have to keep tolerating it. Why must U.S. tax payers be forced to foot the $70 billion per day for illegal aliens (which does not even include the massive cost of disease, and thousands of homicides per year)? Who are you to tell others they must tolerate the continued burden on their education, healthcare, welfare, law enforcement, prison, insurance, law enforcement, and voting systems? Where’s your compassion for U.S. citizens that go without because those resources have been stolen by illegal aliens ? Explain that, and I’ll listen … but I have little doubt that what will follow will be more attacks and name calling … XENOPHOBES ! RACISTs ! NAZIs ! That is just a lame tactic to divert attention away from weak, unsubstantiated arguments.

Most Americans want the borders secured, no amnesty, illegal immigratino stopped, and all the freebies that attract illegal aliens here to be eliminated. I doubt slumbering voters will ever get off their lazy butts and put an end to the theft of their systems, but if they do, they will be well within their rights to do so.

Now, that does not mean illegal aliens should be mistreated or hated.
They should be assisted in peacefully returning to their homeland.
The could be accomplished as follows:

  • Secure the borders (with a mere 5.9% (i.e. 153,000 border patrol) of the total number of 2.6 million military, guard, and reserves; at a cost of $10 billion per year, which is far less than the current annual net losses of $70 billion due to illegal immigration)

  • Require enforcement of all immigration laws. Enforce the existing laws.

  • Require deportation of ALL illegal entries and visa overstays currently within our jails and prisons (i.e. within our custody).

  • Require ALL employers to use the Social Security Verification System for ALL hires.

  • Deny ALL illegal alien births automatic citizenship.

  • Deny ALL illegal aliens a FREE K-12 education.

  • Deny ALL illegal aliens ANY and ALL public benefits (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.)

  • Deny ALL illegal aliens driver’s licenses.

  • Deny ALL illegal aliens college tuition.

  • Verify ALL voter’s citizenship, before permission to vote. Biometrics could be helpful.

  • Provide $500 (per person) and pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S.

  • With no jobs or welfare, the remaining illegal aliens will leave voluntarily. Allow 12 months for all illegal aliens to leave on their own, with their own property. Those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. must get in line behind those already seeking to immigrate legally.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #144168

Dan,

Could you repeat that for the 2 guys that stil havent gotten it yet;)

Posted by: Rocky at April 29, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #144169
NO AMNESTY, NO HANDOUTS, NO GUEST WORKER PROGRAMS, NO JOBS, NO BIRTH RIGHTS. NO REASON TO BE IN OR COME TO THE USA ILLEGALLY!!! (This includes any race, etc.) Hang in there d.a.n.

Thanks!

You have to wonder why someone like me would put myself through this.
I’m not doing myself any favors here at all.
It’s not because I am a racist.
I loathe racism.
I just simply do not believe this country is for the public use of the rest of the world.
Our systems being abused.
U.S. tax payers are being stolen from, and our irresponsible government is complicit (and voters allowed it).

There’s just no nice way to put it.
And, for that, I get called a racist, xenophobe, and Nazi.

We can’t all live at the expense of everyone else.

At this rate, most will be riding in the wagon, while a very few are trying to pull the wagon.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #144172
Could you repeat that for the 2 guys that stil havent gotten it yet ; )

You think I need to?
I will be more than happy to if you really think so.
: )

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #144176

For some reason, some people don’t like my silly bullets.
However, I think it’s the facts that follow the silly bullets that really bothers them.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #144177

And if you don’t like hearing from me that your party has become the party of wild suggestions and gullibility, hear it from your own Tony Snow - your new WhiteHouse Press Secrretary and ex FOX news anchor:

How About a Little Common Sense on Immigration
By Tony Snow

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Illegal immigration seems to have spawned a dreary debate about the merits of Mexicans, when it should be drawing attention instead to a very different matter: how to build on the luster and wonder of the American dream.

Immigration is not the pox neo-Know Nothings make it out to be.
Begin with the astounding influx of illegal immigrants, the vast majority of whom hail from Mexico. While the population includes an eye-popping number of crooks, drug-dealers and would-be welfare sponges, it also provides a helpful prop for sustaining American economic growth and cultural dynamism.

Princeton University sociologist Douglas S. Massey reports that
62 percent of illegal immigrants pay income taxes (via withholding) and 66 percent contribute to Social Security. Forbes magazine notes that Mexican illegals aren’t clogging up the social-services system: only 5 percent receive food stamps or unemployment assistance; 10 percent send kids to public schools.

On the work front, Hispanic unemployment has tumbled to 5.5 percent, only slightly above the national average of 4.7 percent and considerably lower than the black unemployment rate of 9.3 percent.
Economist Larry Kudlow praises Hispanic entrepreneurship: “According to 2002 Census Bureau data, Hispanics are opening businesses at a rate three times faster than the national average. In addition, there were almost 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generating $222 billion in revenue in 2002.”

Skeptics counter that immigrants have clogged our hospitals, which is true — but primarily in places that offer lavish benefits to illegal immigrants.
….
Read more here

Posted by: Max at April 29, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #144178

d.a.n.,

I don’t know if it’s pride or just stubborn-ness. I’ll try this again in a litle barbed fashon -

You are concerned with tax expense. I then tell you the undocumented are PAYING taxes. You don’t care. You then offer that only 50% are paying. Why does that matter? Would you us, as a nation judge them all by the worst percentage?

I care about the very foundations and values this country was built on. The cost of those values is NOTHING compared to the cost of their absence. You appear to appreciate your tax dollar and completely misunderstand your nation. That’s sad for you and, ultimately, for us all.

The reason you are getting called a bigot is that it naturaly falls out of the inconsistencies in what you advocate. You don’t realize it, but it is you calling yourself that more than anything else. If you advocate that we administer immigration law, grant or not grant citizenship based on crime statistics or grant or not grant education for FUTURE AMERICANS based on national origen…you are going to get called the obvious names associated with that kind of thinking, d.a.n. Why are you surprised by that?

Where was your great, great grandmother born, dan?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #144179

Max you beat me to it.

Posted by: Rocky at April 29, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #144180

Oh, and yeah it is racism that is driving this, and most South Americans know it, and will vote your party out.

Many Americans are waking up to it too. Let’s face it, the Republican party is drowning in a pool of red ink and blood. Turning to an issue like immigration stokes the fires of racism and xenophobia. You’ve already shown you can win an election through fear and conniving - now let’s try racism!

Why don’t you try caring about something that would actually help this country. How about a plan to start saving some frigging money?

Posted by: Max at April 29, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #144181

d.a.n.,

I called your silly bullets silly because you seem to think so much of them and yet they are, every one of them, completely irrelevent. You seem to think you are offering evidence that shows something. All it shows is how little you appreciate and understand.

Why do you simultaneously offer the observation the those who come here undocumented are themselves breaking the law, and yet you actually advocate administering laws based on statistical analysis of segments of population…..and then defend yourself so vigorously against accusations of bigotry?

Can you not get outside yourself enough to see the forest for the trees?

RGF

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #144183

d.a.n.,

I have explained at length about the horrors of attempting to govern by statistics, but if you insist -

consider the side issue that your stats are woefully wrong. see Max’s post above. you are off, in some cases, by an order of magnitude.

However, I stick my insistence that the stats, regardless of what they say, are irrelevent.

If you don’t appreciate that everyone is equal under the law then you yourself are something other than American.

For those who are not citizens (yet!), it just means that immigration and NATURALIZATION laws apply as well. BUT THEY ARE STILL EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW!

That means it is just flat wrong (illegal as well) to treat their misdemeanor crimes as felonies just because some or other percentage of their imigrant group may or may not be more or less prone to become felons.

Since you espouse respect for law (or is it just a few of the more immediate immigration laws?), why do you not seem to get this?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #144187

save money. cut benifits to NON-CITIZENS> Criminal Immigrants fit the bill and then we don’t have to foot the bill.

Posted by: lm at April 29, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #144188

d.a.n.

I lived in Houston, Texas for almost 20 years and watched the transformation of the labor force from predominately black/white to hispanic. In fact, I was effectively forced to shut down my home improvment business. I could not compete since I refused to hire from the cheap labor pool gathered in parking lots of vacant gas stations that I considered to be illegal aliens. Now, and for the last 7 years, I live in Florida and I am witnessing the same thing here - for all practical purposes an illegal alien invasion.

My observations over the last 27 years is that the common, hard working hispanic citizens of Central America (primarily of Mexican descent) are achieving what Santa Anna and his army couldn’t do - run the gringos off “their land”. With much reservation for fear of being accused of falling off the back of a truck and bumping my head amongst other things :-), I would like to suggest a conspiracy by the hispanic community, legal and otherwise, is well under way that requires a great deal of resistance. The silent majority can no longer be silent!!

No jobs, no handouts, no birth rights, no place to hide, no amnesty, no guest worker program, no reason to stay in or come to the USA illegally.

Posted by: Terry C at April 29, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #144190

d.a.n.
Oh sorry, I didn’t mean to say hollering, in your case it would be listing dozens of statistics that nobody cares to read since they take up 3 pages.

Posted by: greenstuff at April 29, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #144191

Just a few points to ponder.

Should a country has the right to secure its border, control its immigration, enforce its laws, and to serve to its citizens?

Would any country’s citizens feel the same way, epecially with its out-of-control illegal immigration?

With the abuses within the government, companies, and illegal immigrants; should its citizens have the right to finally say enough is enough?

Had this country traditionally been the most generous in accepting immigrants than any other countries?

Can nations like Canada, Japan, Sweden, or even New Guinea do without a large number of illegal aliens?

Would 1 day boycott from illegal aliens break this country?

Would it be better to have a 60+ days boycott instead, so the positions will be filled by the displaced legal workers and the wages normalize?

Would it better if the people and their government just do what is right for their country without ulterior motives?


Posted by: Daniel at April 29, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #144196

Terry C,

Many employers are choosing to hire immigrants and then implement strategies to help them achieve legal status. They get the labor they need, those they help get what they want most and everyone satisfies the requirements of the law.

You chose a different course. Don’t blame your bad business decisions on anyone’s ethnicity.

I, too, lived in Houston for many years. I remember the race wars in the seventies that began as a result of the lazy white shrimpers who couldn’t get their hangovers out to the prime spots early enough to beet the Viet-namese and so they began shooting them from boat to boat. I remember being handed anti-Catholic hate literature by Baptists while walking out of Mass. I remember the Clarence Brantly case in Conroe where a black man was wrongfully accused of a murder and lost his job, family, 11 years of life and his home before finally being exhonerated. I remember Vidor, the James Byrd killing in Jasper, just to name a few things.

Our nation has implemented policies over many decades to keep our neighbor to the South from prospering. The Bucareli agreement rammed down Mexico’s throat during their revolution in the 20’s, the subsequent pressure we have exerted to force subsequent regimes, all the way to the present, to sign off on the same illegal agreement (it remains unratified by either nation), The maquiladoras (that Bush himself advocated as an example of what we have doen FOR our neighbor’s benefit!!!) whereby we continue to abuse and manipulate their labor force and their economy. Why are we now surprised that they now seek to come here in order to survive? Are we not merely reaping what we have sewed?

Regardless, I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I think they re-invigorate us. There is one very salient issue in d.a.n.’s posts: The vast majority of this wave of immigration is arriving illegaly. There is one solution that works: MAKE THEM LEGAL. It’s what they want most, anyway. They don’t want anymore than to become American citizens and be a part of us and our nation. Let’s give them what they want. Ultimately, it helps us both.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #144198

Daniel,

I was writing my last post when yours went up. I simply must ask you:

What do you suppose would happen to the costs of buying, building houses around this country when we no longer hire the as yet undocumented? Seriously consider where the hidden costs are.

Here is a FAIR thought:

Let’s shut down ALL of our maquiladoras within 100 miles of our border with Mexico! If we don’t want them to seek our prosperity, we shouldn’t take advantage of their poverty, either!

Perhaps when spark-plugs cost $50 a pop you will think differently.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #144206

Bottom line, this issue is about an Us -vs- Them mentality that simply needs to fade out and go away.

OUR prosperity is inextricably tied to the prosperity and stability of our neighbors. EVEN if we COULD build some kind of effective barrier between our two nations, we would only exponentially exacerbate the prosperity-disparity between us. Ultimately that would de-stabilize our neighbors, our region and ourselves. It would also create an exponentially greater NEED for those to the South of the border to find a way a way North, which is why no physical barrier is anything more than an extraordinarily temporary and stop-gap adress to a symptom and not the disease.

The only real cure is for us to realize we are in this together and to help our neighbors achieve a level prosperity that enables them to succeed at home. However, even then I beleive we would be depriving ourselves the re-invigoration to our nation that they bring when they come here and become American citizens.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #144209

RGF, get off the personal comments aimed at d.a.n, or you won’t have comment privileges here anymore. Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. This will be your only warning.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at April 29, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #144210

RGF,
Sorry, but I still disagree.
But, I’ll give you credit for trying.
Unfortunately, none of it is convincing.
And, some, when they can’t win through logic, start playing the race card.

RGF wrote: Where was your great, great grandmother born, d.a.n?

Why do you want to know ?
What difference does it make ?
My great grandmother was Cherokee.
So what ?

Terry C,
I’m with you.
Fortunately, most Americans are too.
The pro-illegal alien bunch had better hope the voters don’t get too riled up about this and force their politicians to deal with this issue now. Who knows? Maybe government will do something this time ?

Daniel wrote: Hasn’t this country traditionally been the most generous in accepting immigrants than any other countries?
Daniel, Yes it has, and this is how we are thanked.

What’s this talk about “Guest Worker” crap?
Did any one hear anything that sounded like a guest?
Did any one hear anything that sounded like someone asking to become American?
I didn’t notice anyone asking for amnesty?
It sounded more like they were telling us.
In fact, it sounded more like demanding.
Perhaps, even threatening.

Then, some clever soul must have had a stroke of genious, and told them that waving the flags of heir homeland was not making a good impression on television, so they started flying American flags.

But it is too late.
Such shallow, last minute changes will not hide the disgusting reality and hostility.

In times past, when immigrants came to American, they came here to become Americans. Not so now. Based on 29% of illegal aliens fill our prisons, and 32% receive welfare, many come here for crime and welfare.

Sure, most of the 12 million come to find work, but a nation requires more than workers. It needs people who are citizens and an asset; not a burden. We don’t need any more anvils hanging around our neck as we try to swim upstream against an increasingly corrupt, do-nothing, FOR SALE, bought-and-paid-for government.

Those that make excuses for illegal aliens, kiss their feet, and perpetuate the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else are ruining this nation.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #144213

BTW,

There is no reason to be angry with illegal aliens that merely come here to look for work.
We practically invited them.
Greedy employers lured them here.
Corrupt government was complicit with conflicting laws enforced selectively (or unenforced).
And voters didn’t like it, but were too lazy to do anything about it.

RGF, the borders are wide open now. How is making illegal aliens legal going to help? They tried that in 1986. They invited their 20 closest relatives. Any nation with a good standard of living and public benefits such as ours, are quite simply going to be overrun by illegal aliens that want to abuse those systems. How do you stop that? Making them legal will make it even easier for those systems to be abused. The logic of opening the borders and letting the world come here does not make any sense. That is a recipe for disaster, and what we are witnessing now, since the amnesty in 1986 is proof of it.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #144214

RGF wrote:
What do you suppose would happen to the costs of buying, building houses around this country when we no longer hire the as yet undocumented? Seriously consider where the hidden costs are.
————

I don’t believe the cost is a real issue. If any money is saved by the homeowner, this will be far offset by the extra cost he incurred in the long run. Extra property taxes for education and community services, and extra federal income taxes for government aids to illegal aliens. There will be more jobs for legal workers with higher pay and more taxes paid by them. By the way, many legal immigrants are willing to take lower paying jobs since many have lower skills and English. In any case we are talking for the good of the country as a whole, not just home owners. The hiring of illegals is primarily to save money for the employers, under the table wages. Also, a large part of the money illegals make are sent back to their home country. For example, the annual revenues Mexico receives from U.S. illegals exceed tourism and second only to oil. A country can use and can benefit from immigrants. That’s why we have liked many other countries have, legal immigration. So it can be done right for country and for the immigrants obvious reasons.

The real point is controlling illegal immigration, upholding our laws, and look after the country’s citizens. It is not about justifying and encouraging illegal immigrants.

Posted by: Daniel at April 29, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #144218

A couple of short comments. The person crossing the border illegally becomes a criminal as soon as his little toe crosses the border. So he first of all is a criminal. So, let us deal with that first.

The IFCO raid recently netted about 1100 people of which about 80% have been released without charges even though they are here illegally. So much for the law.

And lastly, maybe we Americans should become undocumented Americans so that we can get lower tuition rates at state universities, free holpital care, etc. That would tighten up the shorts of congresspersons (and females too).

Posted by: tomh at April 29, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #144221

RGF: Many employers are choosing to hire immigrants and then implement strategies to help them achieve legal status. They get the labor they need, those they help get what they want most and everyone satisfies the requirements of the law.

You chose a different course. Don’t blame your bad business decisions on anyone’s ethnicity.

Me: Seems a little while ago I posted some definitions regarding crime and criminals. I chose not to aid and abet those who I perceived were criminals or risk breaking the law since I had no way of validating their status prior to hiring them. Those who would were my competition - simple as that and that’s the difference between chosing to do something right or wrong! Not a bad business decision

RGF: There is one very salient issue in d.a.n.’s posts: The vast majority of this wave of immigration is arriving illegaly. There is one solution that works: MAKE THEM LEGAL. It’s what they want most, anyway. They don’t want anymore than to become American citizens and be a part of us and our nation. Let’s give them what they want.

Me: DUH not acceptable - check my previous posts in the event my position needs clarifying.

No jobs, no handouts, no birth rights, no place to hide, no amnesty, no guest worker program, no reason to stay in or come to the USA illegally.

Posted by: Terry C at April 29, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #144222

Daniel,

Yes, the rise in cost of some things would be overwhelmingly offset by the elimination of the net loss of $70 billion per year.
Now, since it will take $10 billion per year to secure the U.S./Canada and U.S./Mexico borders, that is still $60 billion saved. That’s a lot. And the $70 billion is a very conservative figure, since it does not include all losses stemming from illegal immigration (e.g. crime, disease, etc.).

Someone above said it was all about money.
The race card thing was growin’ old, so the money/greed thing was worth a try.

Well, it is not about money.
It is about ownership.
This country is not for the public use of the rest of the world.
But, if we open our borders and public benefits to the world, you can rest assured, they will come by the millions. Who wouldn’t?

Unfortunately, we do not live in Utopia.
The issue is really one of common sense.
We can not control how other nations control their nations. Poverty is rampant in many nations because of severely corrupt governments; even more corrupt than our (if you can believe that). We could let everyone come here, but their homelands would still be corrupt, and before too long, we will have overpopulation, and we will soon all be losers.
It’s folly to think we can absorb millions of illegal aliens every year. We are now witnessing the classic problems stemming from massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration.

It is especially bad here too, because we have so many public benefits and civil laws that are being severely abused. For example, look at the expenses (per state) for education, emergency medical, and incarceration alone for 2005/2006:

… and that does not even include a large number of other categories, such as healthcare, disease, crime, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, voting, insurance, property taxes, displaced workers, and displaced workers drawing unemployment and welfare, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #144223
tomh wtote: The IFCO raid recently netted about 1100 people of which about 80% have been released without charges even though they are here illegally. So much for the law.
Yeah, I heard about that. No wonder illegal aliens don’t respect our laws. We are practically programming them not to. We are encouraging them to commit more crime. No wonder a GAO-05-646R report shows an average arrest rate of 13 arrests per illegal alien (for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period).

Slumbering voters had better wake up, before they wake up just in time to see the complete transfer of their net worth to someone else.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #144224

Thanks to all for sharing your opinions and allowing me to do likewise. If you’ll excuse me, I need to make up my shopping list for Monday, select the restaurants I’ll be eating my 3 meals in, and figuring out what business will never get another penny of my money for supporting the upcoming tragedy. This gringo plans to support our system!!!!!

Have you considered running for office d.a.n. :-)

Posted by: Terry C at April 29, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #144227

Terry C,
Thanks !
I’m positive you will find many restarants to choose from. Happy shopping !

Have you considered running for office d.a.n. :-)

It has crossed my mind. Thank you very much for considering me worthy.
It’s a crappy job, but I’d consider it.
But, I fear my career would not last long, since I would have ZERO tolerance for the kind of corruption now found in our federal government.
I would be an out cast, shunned, and stripped of all supports.
They would find a way to get rid of me ASAP.
So, that’s the problem anyone faces.
Well meaining newcomers are always outnumbered by corrupt incumbents.

But, instead, for now, I’m a member of a non-profit organization, Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy, and our goal is to help educate voters and help them understand that D.C. needs a flush. It’s now up to the slumbering voters. Irresponsible incumbents will not reform voluntarily. Voters should peacefully force them to pass badly-needed, common-sense reforms. Voters can do it using the one simple thing, right there under their nose; the simple, common-sense, non-partisan, inexpensive, peaceful, and responsible thing they were supposed to do all along.
Vote out all irresponsible incumbents. Keep the good ones (if there are any; the pickin’s are mighty slim).

Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #144228

Terry c,

you got the right idea. dan we need to organize and start our own movement. we have the resources to get it accomplished. 1st we support only businesses that do not hire illegal immigrants. We protest in our letters to the editors in our towns and boycott any business who honors a day when criminals try to dictate policy of our government. we start a movement like dan to vote out corruption and vote in those who would do away with the great American give away. Romney has the right idea. Mandatory insurance for all legal citizens paid for with the money we save by no free illegal immigrant aid. no more food stamps for non citizens and only school for those who’s family pays school taxes or legal citizens. those who have not gotten here with proper processing should be gathered up and sent to country of origin. kinda like a catch and carry program.

let us show them we do not need trouble makers only those who speak our language and want to be part of the system not milkers of the system.

bi-lingual is great but English is the language of the day. I am very upset with all the talk about how they are treated and what they want. It was on the news that one of the militant spokesman for the criminal rights people that if this does not get washingtons attention that it won’t be peaceful next time. Well they will not get washingtons attention with an election coming this year because they have no vote.

felons will not be voting in any election not even dog catcher.

Posted by: lm at April 29, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #144234

bobby,

spoken like a *true* conservative. keep up the good fight.

best,

Posted by: diogenes (i) at April 29, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #144239

lm,
Great ideas.
Visit issues2000.org , click on your state, and send and E-Mail to your Senators and Representative about this issue.
Otherwise, those do-nothing, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians will try to forget all about this issue immediately after the November elections.
Also, check out the following:

  • fairus.org

  • cis.org

  • theamericanresistance.com

  • www.frostywooldridge.com

  • migration.ucdavis.edu

  • Posted by: d.a.n at April 29, 2006 9:46 PM
    Comment #144244

    One thing the businesses miss is the ‘jobs we won’t do’ people does not keep them in business. Let us protest in not doing business for one year with people who close to celebrate criminal activist. That will show them a thing or three when the illegal’s get deported and stop shopping.

    We have an abundant supply of early retirees to fill in some of the jobs they leave to protest. Think about this, after they protest demanding criminal rights showing they have no respect for the rule of law, what will keep them from poisoning our food when we seek their services at restaurants, grocery stores, ect. We stand a greater risk from them now that they have made their intentions known by flying the Mexican Flag as their choice of Loyalty and disgraceing our Old Glory by flying it upside down under the Mexican Flag. I for one will never eat at a place that employees someone who may harm me or mine to prove a misguided political point.

    They can kill us with their service, or they can just spit in our salad, soup ect. My protest starts now so proprietors beware.

    Seriously, minimum wage cannot enjoy the fringes if they have to pay their health care and employers cannot stay in business if we refuse to patronize them after May 1.

    Let’s get together and call it the “get back America day.” Or get bad.

    think about who might have seasoned your food and with what next time you choose to shop or eat out.

    Posted by: lm at April 29, 2006 10:09 PM
    Comment #144245

    Hello Dan,
    I write and call my Congressman daily and also my Representative. I have always been active in expressing to my government my vote concerning Border Security, 2nd Amendment and other issues of importance. I also write letters to the editor. I have sponsored billboard posters on issues important to our freedoms. I hope everyone will take the time to call Tuesday as they will be closed Monday.
    Keep the faith and keep the border secure.

    Posted by: lm at April 29, 2006 10:17 PM
    Comment #144261

    lm,

    That’s good that you pressure your congress persons.
    If more did the same, they might take voters more seriously.
    Want to do more? Try this.
    It may be more effective than letters, E-Mails, and phone calls !

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 30, 2006 1:07 AM
    Comment #144296

    come on pickers show us how we are racist because we tell our congressman how to vote. plug the borders. ya know what i mean.

    Posted by: lm at April 30, 2006 9:46 AM
    Comment #144305
    Andre M. Hernandez wrote: 1. Create a political environment that is not so threatening so that those who are here will come forward. 2. Background checks. 3. Criminals and those not willing to be truthful will be forced to leave. 4. Those who are hard-working and honest can stay. 5. We secure our borders to keep out terrorists, not use border security to satisfy the, “keep out the mexican “bigots. 6. We create a process that regulates who is allowed to enter the country, creating a “good guy” come on in,”bad guys” stay out policy that secures the border and is welcoming to immigrants from all nations.

    Andre,
    You should be commended for offering solutions.
    Please allow me to comment on each.

    Andre M. Hernandez wrote:
    1. Create a political environment that is not so threatening so that those who are here will come forward.

    Andre M. Hernandez wrote: 2. Background checks.
    Respectfully, it would be best if we didn’t go down this path, because it will be woefully inadequate, extremely slow, and expensive too. It will be wide open to all sorts of abuses and selective interpretation. It would be a very effective delaying tactic too.
    Andre M. Hernandez wrote: 3. Criminals and those not willing to be truthful will be forced to leave.
    Actually, it would be best to not deport anyone, by force, except criminals already within prison or jail for crimes other than the misdemeanor of being here illegally to begin with.
    Andre M. Hernandez wrote: 4. Those who are hard-working and honest can stay.
    That’s a bad idea, because we did that in 1986, and the problem grew by over 400%, because the new citizens (provided amnesty) invited numerous relatives to come here illegally.
    Andre M. Hernandez wrote: 5. We secure our borders to keep out terrorists, not use border security to satisfy the, “keep out the mexican” bigots.
    Illegal aliens are not all from Mexico. At any rate, the borders should be secured for security reasons and to prevent illegal trespass. But, also, the magnets and freebies must be eliminated that lure illegal aliens (from all over the world) to come here illegally.
    Andre M. Hernandez wrote: 6. We create a process that regulates who is allowed to enter the country, creating a “good guy” come on in, “bad guys” stay out policy that secures the border and is welcoming to immigrants from all nations.
    We currently allow hundreds of thousands to legally immigrate to the U.S. annually. The problem is that nobody is happy with that process, because millions want in. We can’t make the pie any bigger. We can’t allow everyone to come here. We are already witnessing the problems stemming from massive, uncontrolled, illegal immigration. We are importing poverty, crime, and disease. The net losses are being forced onto U.S. tax payers (over $70 billion per year , and that does not even include all costs, such as crime, disease, job displacement, etc.)

    Some want to make a race issue of it, but it’s simpl a matter of ownership.
    American citizens, if they choose, are well within their sovereign rights, like any nation, to regulate the inflow of immigrants. Masive, uncontrolled immigration (legal or illegal) creates chaos, societal disorder, resentments, and fuels racism, as everyone struggles to protect their assets. And U.S. citizens are being stolen from. True, it’s their own fault for allowing crooked politicians to ignore existing laws, but it’s not fair to U.S. citizens to be forced to pay for the burdens on education, healthcare, emergency medical, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, law inforcment, voting, CDC, insurance, and prison systems. The net losses to U.S. tax payers was $24.4 billion in 1996, and has now grown to over $70 billion. U.S. tax payers are within their rights to refuse to do so any longer. Actually, what will happen is that those burden systems will become so abused, they will be discontinued. Perhaps that is what should happen. That would elimiante the magents. And, the magnets are obvious, since 32% of illegal aliens recevie welfare. Ten years ago, it was 10%, but it mushroomed as the 3+ million given amnesty in 1986 grew to 12+ million now.

    Why must U.S. citizens keep paying over $70 billion per year?
    What gives any foreigner the right to demand anything from U.S. citizens?

    The main point is that illegal aliens are burdening U.S. citizens, and they don’t like it. And rightfully so. It’s that simple.

    Unfortunately, the problem has been exacerbated by corrupt incumbent politicians that want votes and cheap labor for greedy employers (their big-money-donor puppeteers).

    True, U.S. citizens have failed, as usual, to hold their do-nothing, corrupt, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians accountable, but other than that, U.S. citizens are victims too !, since U.S. citizens are the ones footing the bills (since the labor is mostly low skilled, low paying, and doesn’t generate much in the way of taxes, and greedy employers are the only ones profitting mostly from the cheap labor).

    Both U.S. citizens are illegal aliens are both being used corrupt incumbent politicians.

    Now, those corrupt politicians (bordering on evil) are trying to pit illegal aliens and U.S. citizens against each other.

    If U.S. citizens want their borders secured, that is their sovereign right to do so.
    If U.S. citizens do not want to keep footing the $70 billion per year bill for the burdens on education, healthcare, emergency medical, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, law inforcment, voting, CDC, insurance, and prison systems, that is their right.

    Andre,
    Please don’t be angry.
    I know this is a charged issue.
    I respect your opinion and your right to it.

    Regardless of what happens, illegal aliens will unlikely want to stay here if there are no jobs (no more tolerating those that use illegal aliens, creating an under-paid, under-class), no more welfare, no more education, healthcare, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, college tuition, food stamps, etc., etc., etc.)

    But, having said all of that, Our do-nothing, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians and law enforcement will probably never do anything about any of this (other than talk about it and whip voters into a frenzy, while they pit voters and illegal aliens against each other).

    This entire subject will most likely be forgotten immediately after the November elections.

    Both Democrats and Republicans will get their way.
    They want votes and cheap labor, and they don’t give a damn about American taxpayers. So, the American tax payer gets screwed (as usual).

    Illegal aliens will probably get amnesty, and we will see 12+ million illegal aliens turn into 48 million, and the $70+ billion in annual net losses will mushroom into $300 billion.

    Before long, everyone will be riding in the wagon, and no one will be pushing it, and we will finally prove that we really can’t all live at the expense of everyone else.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 30, 2006 12:18 PM
    Comment #144328

    seriously, Employers get 6 months amnesty to clean up their act. Report all illegal immigrant workers for deportation. report any illegal immigrants who apply for employment. After 6 months confiscate all property of violators and sell it in public auction and use the money to deport illegal immigrants. You know kinda like the war on drugs where the Police department uses confiscated property and sells in at auction and uses the money for the war on drugs.

    War on illegal immigration. The proper way to stop this flood is plug the border and stop the job market. fines won’t deter many businesses but when they loose it and become felons themselves it will dry up the job market.

    Amnesty darn straight, give 6 months to employers and then lower the boom. with the money we save on free medical alone will hire more police to get this done.

    Posted by: lm at April 30, 2006 2:29 PM
    Comment #144352

    I don’t care what anyone protest as long as it’s not on my dime.
    I have 3 Mexicans working for me, 2 are good workers, the other is time is very limited. I’ve told them and everyone else that if they don’t show up tomorrow and aren’t either sick with a doctors note or dead with a death certificate not to bother to show up on Tuesday either. Although I don’t think anyone was seriously thinking of protesting tomorrow except the guy that’s about to be fired anyway.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 30, 2006 4:38 PM
    Comment #144428

    This May 1st thing is very ill advised.
    It will simply create more resentment.
    It will not have the positive effect they think.
    Most U.S. citizens don’t care about any inconveniences, because they know they are already experiencing net losses of over $70 billion per year.
    They’d rather pay a little more for some things, rather than lose $70 billion per year.
    Those that try to assert that illegal aliens are not a burden on our education, welfare, healthcare, CDC, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, law enforcement, insurance, voting, and prison systems, are simply wrong. That does not even include the massive and devastating costs of crime, disease, and job displacement.

    The problem is that we are importing massive poverty, crime, and disease. A majority of the illegal aliens are not highly skilled or highly paid. Therefore, the income taxes received from about 50% of illegal aliens is insufficient to exceed the net losses to U.S. citizens. This is largely a result of massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration. The symptoms are classic: chaos, societal disorder, resentments, poverty, crime, disease, and racism.

    Illegal aliens merely looking for work should not be mistreated or hated, because the order of blame ((1)least,…, (4)to most) for this entire problem is as follows:

    • (1) illegal aliens;

    • (2) lazy voters that allowed all of it;

    • (3) greedy employers of illegal aliens;

    • (4) corrupt, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians;

    Notice how irresponsible incumbent politicians are trying to pit U.S. citizens against illegal aliens.

    Don’t fall for it.
    Make a note of irresponsible incubment politicians that talk a lot, but don’t follow through on this issue. They will try to forget all about it soon after the November elections. Those irresponsible incumbents should be voted out.
    Actually, all irresponsible incumbents should be voted out, always. They created this problem by creating conflicting laws that forced states to accomodate illegal aliens, prevent E.R.s and hospitals from reporting illegal aliens, all employers to illegally employ illegal aliens, failure to secure the borders, allow illegal aliens to burden our education, welfare, healthcare, CDC, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, law enforcement, insurance, voting, and prison systems. The irresponsible incubment politicians don’t care. They already got theirs. They have golden parachutes. They make a habit of screwing the average American tax payer; lying to them.

    But, I suppose voters deserve it, if they allow it. What’s interesting is how illegal aliens can organize for May 1st for a common cause, but American citizens can’t. That’s why American citizens are being overrun. They are lazy, complacent, and apathetic. They are also far too fond of wallowing in the petty, distracting, wasteful partisan warfare, and irresponsible incumbent politicians love to fuel it.

    You know something?
    Seeing how lazy American voters are, too self absorbed to get out and vote, too fond of wallowing in the petty partisan warfare, and brainwashed to repeatedly re-elect the very same irresponsible incumbents that use and abuse them perhaps the illegal aliens will run this country better?

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 1, 2006 12:27 AM
    Comment #144528

    MAY 5TH —— NOTHING MEXICAN DAY

    Make the illegals - all of them - felons. Give them a suspended sentence in exchange for a fine.
    Reason: Felons cannot vote. That will take them out of the political posturing that is going on as to how to cater to them and deal with a very angry public at the same time.

    Posted by: Jena at May 1, 2006 12:23 PM
    Comment #144771

    Yes, illegal aliens can and do vote.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 2, 2006 9:42 AM
    Comment #145044

    Personally, if the many lazy Americans that don’t want to work would get up and WORK, we wouldn’t be so dependant on immigrant work. The last time I check, I would have thought that if you are in this country illegally, you are already a felon, or am I just thinking logically? Much of our problem has been caused by liberal america, such as employers not being able to do checks on immigrant workers, because that person can be fired, and come back the next day with a new social security card, and a new number, and the employer has to employ them. This equal opportunity crap is very discriminant and cheats people who deserve jobs out of them. I don’t know how many people are laying out of jobs on unemployment, and turn in five different applications a week, just to keep the unemployment. Their job will go to an immigrant, and that one more american relying on someone else.

    Posted by: Michael at May 3, 2006 11:04 AM
    Comment #145059

    d.a.n and any others who are opposed to illegal immigration, the alien invasion and the lack of government enforcement may be interested in this site full of like minded citizens. The link in to the Illegal Immigrant Protest.com http://www.illegalimmigrantprotest.com/

    A gentleman there has posted a very interesting stategy on their forum at http://www.argumentsake.com/illegalimmigrantprotest/index.php?topic=54.0

    Posted by: Terry C at May 3, 2006 11:58 AM
    Comment #145065

    Terry C,
    Thanks for the links.
    Don’t think I’ve seen that site.
    I contribute to other such organizations already, and will contribute to this one too as long as they are on the up-and-up and not racist about it.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 3, 2006 12:17 PM
    Comment #145081

    Great d.a.n. In fact the racist question has been pondered a number of times so I believe an effort to stick with the issues is present in the majority. I figured your interest in the political side would be helpful. Hope it works out

    Posted by: Terry C at May 3, 2006 1:58 PM
    Comment #145131

    Dan,

    From your link;

    “We need a slogan that is a clear representation of what all Americans feel in their gut on this issue.
    Well thats certainly simple: when I hear congressman speak on undocumented immigrants, my first thought is, vote that bum out. So thats what it should be, we should all be unified to “vote the bum’s out.” Obviously we don’t care which bum’s. That makes selection easy, vote against all incumbents in every election democrat or republican or anything in between. Until the demands of the people are met.”

    This sounds very much like “mob rules”.

    Those lines were as far as I got and lost interest.

    Posted by: Rocky at May 3, 2006 5:23 PM
    Comment #145134

    Terry C,
    Thanks. I signed the petition, and made a donation. I feel badly for this woman. She’s one of the many Americans that contracted Tuberculosis from an illegal alien.

    One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people
    with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara
    Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak” .

    As if all the numerous other things weren’t bad enough, illegal aliens infect us with their diseases.

    Here is Kimberly’s tragedy:


    Here is a just a glimpse into the personal struggle that our family has endured over the last few years due to the influx of illegal immigrant criminals. I’m sure that many of you have suffered some of the same personal effects of these invaders. I would like to start this discussion by sharing my personal journey with you…..

    I, (Kimberly) was hospitalized on Oct 15, 2004 with an acute appendix emergency. I had to have emergency surgery and was hospitalized for 4 days. While hospitalized, I was exposed to an illegal immigrant at the hospital who was infected with Tuberculosis (TB). This illegal immigrant was exposed to over 2000 patients and hospital staff.

    Unfortunately, I was not notified of this deadly exposure for over 2 months. In late January of 2005 I received a letter from The Riverside County, CA Health Department officially notifying me that I had been exposed to the bacteria, and to IMMEDIATELY seek medical testing and attention.

    I went to my family doctor who sadly confirmed that I had indeed been infected with the deadly Tuberculosis (TB) bacteria. I had to take medication for 9 months. We all hope that this infection will at least allow me to be able to see my children grow up.

    Once the initial medical emergency and devastation subsided, the ANGER set in!

    We ALL need to do whatever we can, to STOP the illegal immigrant invasion of the United States Of America! This website is my small contribution, and I will work as hard as possible to make this National Anti-Illegal Immigrant protest rally a success!

    Thank you so much for your time, contributions and LOVE for the United States Of America!

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 3, 2006 5:33 PM
    Comment #145144

    d.a.n.,

    She’s one of the many Americans that contracted Tuberculosis from an illegal alien.
    One tragedy does not a statistic make. Look at this article:
    In 2004, for the first time, there were more cases of TB among Hispanics than any other ethnic group. However, the TB rate among Hispanics decreased slightly from 10.3 in 2003 to 10.1 in 2004. This divergent trend was the result of a 3.6 percent increase in the U.S. Hispanic population between 2003 and 2004
    So it appears the immigrants—the one coming across our Southern border anyway—are catching the disease from us.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 5:52 PM
    Comment #145146

    Rocky,

    As you may (or may not) know, I don’s advocate ousting all incumbent politicians.
    Only the irresponsible incumbents.
    Keep the good ones (you know any?).

    But I understand their frustration.
    The fact is, there are very few (if any) irresponsible incumbent politicians that deserve to keep their cu$hy seats of power.

    And, if we can not even name 268 (half of 535) in congress that are responsible, then we’ve got a serious problem.

    Can anyone list 10, 20, 50, or even 268 incumbents (half of the 535) in Congress) that:

    • do not vote irresponsibly for pork-barrel (while our troops risk life and limb, go without body armor, armor for vehicles, and adequate medical and health care) ?

    • do not vote themselves cu$hy perks and raises (e.g. such as the extravagant retirement plans, funded by tax-payers, that are not part of the same mismanaged Social Security and Medicare systems that tax-payers are relegated to) ?

    • do not ignore problems for fear of risking re-election or defying their big-money-donors ?

    • do not prevent newcomers from passing badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible reforms ?

    • do not tempt, pressure, and threaten newcomers with the loss of party support if the newcomers don’t accept the status quo ?
    • do not pander ?

    • do not peddle influence and accept money from big-money-donors ?

    • do not fuel the petty partisan warfare that distracts the nation from our many pressing problems ?

    • do not spend a great deal of time and tax-payers’ money (via allowances) trolling for money for their campaign war-chests ?

    • do not abuse their allowances (provided by tax-payers) to retain their cu$hy, coveted seats of power ?

    • do not look the other way ?

    • genuinely embrace campaign finance reform, election reform, tax reform, or any reform that will create more transparent, accountable, and responsible government, even if it diminishes their opportunities for personal gain ?

    • are fiscally responsible ?

    • deserve to retain their cu$hy, coveted, and prized seats of power ?

    Unfortunately, the system has become so perverted and dysfunctional, it corrupts almost all within it. And that will continue, until voters make it obvious to incumbent politicians that their careers will be short, indeed, if they succumb to the status quo too!

    Yes, study:

    • their voting records to see the pork-barrel they voted for while our troops risk life and limb.

    • the things they do and say.

    • their attendance records; many (such as Sen. John Conyers) don’t even bother to vote much of the time ;

    • their travel habits and expenses paid for by the tax-payers.

    • the use of their time, and how much of it is spent raising big-money for their campaign war-chests.

    • the way they vote themselves raises, special perk$, and cu$hy retirement plans while they totally mismanage and plunder Social Security ($12.8 trillion in the hole)and Medicare Systems.

    Yes, study all those things, and you will probably be surprised at what you find.

    If an incumbent really is responsible, then they deserve to stay. I’m just not sure there are many (if any). I might could come up with a few, but that’s sad. That’s not good enough.

    Here is what all voters should do, and let the chips fall where they may.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 3, 2006 6:06 PM
    Comment #145149

    Welcome aboard d.a.n. and thanks for the post about Kimberly.

    Posted by: Terry C at May 3, 2006 6:17 PM
    Comment #145160
    So it appears the immigrants—the one coming across our Southern border anyway—are catching the disease from us.

    That’s a new one.
    And I’ve got some ocean front property for sale in Arizona.

    Where in that article did is say foreigners were catching TB from Americans? You totally made that up.

    Charles, in the very article you provided a link to, it stated:

    Seven states now bear more than half the total burden of TB disease in the U.S. California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas account for 59.9% of the national case total. The toll continues to be greatest among minority and foreign-born individuals, who consistently have higher rates of TB disease.

    In 2004, another Third World disease rose its ugly head in Oregon. It may have spread to other states across our nation. It won,t get the play
    of the deadly attacks of hepatitis or tuberculosis, however, for American children exposed to this disease, it is a personal nightmare for parents.
    Worse, it may take years to manifest itself in the child. By that time, it may be too late. The infection is neurocysticercosis,, which is
    caused by the parasite Taenia solium. It is a tapeworm identified as the cause of this disease in the Southwestern United States.

    It is especially rampant in the growing colonias, (new neighborhoods) stretching from Brownsville, Texas all the way to San Diego, California.

    Dr. John M. Townes, a disease specialist in Oregon noted that pork tapeworm cases in his U.S. study had originated outside the country. Of
    61 patients studied, 41 were illegal aliens. Five others had not traveled abroad. Four were infected by family members.

    In America of today, we are suffocating in political correctness, while unrestricted immigration will prove a merciless weapon of war.

    It’s importing poverty, crime, and deadly diseases, tuberculosis and leprosy. California is our national harbinger of things to come.

    Charles Wager,
    I agree. Anecotal evidence means nothing.
    What I showed you above is a tiny percentage of evidence. The evidence of disease brought into the U.S. by illegal aliens is overwhelming, not to mention the increased crime rates, homicides, and burdens on our welfare, education, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, law enforcement, voting, healthcare, E.R., insurance, and prison systems.

    What good is the Center for Disease Control when illegal aliens are allowed to come and go as they please? While many are just looking for work, they do not care about our laws. They do not care about the harm they do to others or the diseases they spread. They do not respect us or our laws. They then have the gall to demand amnesty? How arrogant is that?

    For all the pro-illegal alien supporters, I think they all should put their own money, home, and resources where their mouth is. They should all get together and let the illegal aliens come live with them, settle in, stay awile, maybe invite a few dozen relatives? Please prove to us how that theory of yours works … you know … show us how we can all live at the expense of someone else.

    But, NOOOooooo….
    That’s where the hypocrisy reveals itself.
    They want YOU, and YOU, and everyone else to pay for it. Bleedin’ hearts are always like that.
    It’s always: “We should do something.”
    Not, “I should do something.”

    • Where is the companssion for the 3.6 people murdered every day 86 hours by an illegal alien (Source: GAO-05-646R based on study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period)
    • Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers?
    • Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources and 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ?
    • Where is the compassion for the illegal aliens being lured here for sub-minimum wage jobs, creating an under-class (practically slavery) ?
    • Where is the outrage of the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?
    • Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens (29% of all prisoners are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising.
    • Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”. Because illegal alien migration into the USA continues unabated for the past 20 years, we now have 16,000 new cases of incurable MDR tuberculosis in the past five years. We suffer 7,000 new cases of leprosy. We tolerate 100,000 new cases of hepatitis “A” in our society. Chagas Disease, which affects 14 million South Americans and kills 50,000 annually, streams across our borders as unchecked thousands of them enter our society. If you child goes to public school, they could be exposed, as thousands already have been.
    • Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers that lose many tens of billions per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?
    • In view of all that above, how could anyone use the excuse that the U.S. would crumble (economically) without cheap labor? Even if it were true (which it isn’t), does that justify a sub-minimum-wage under-class ? The economy would not crumble, as much as some want to believe it, since the majority of those done by illegal aliens are low-wage, low-skill jobs, and would not generate much in tax revenue, even if half those that don’t pay taxes started paying taxes. Even if it were true, does it justify the perpetuation of an under-paid under-class?? Are we all going to be like Senator Linsey Graham (D-SC) who said: “as a golfer, I probably benefit from their [illegal aliens] labor.” ? Nevermind that S.C. has the highest rate of violent crime (excluding D.C.) of any state in the U.S. and it is largely due to illegal aliens.
    • Where is the compassion for all of the U.S. policemen murdered by illegal aliens? On 13-Nov-2005, Brian Jackson, a Dallas policeman was shot and killed by an illegal alien, Juan Lizcano. Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girfriend to threaten her. As the police pursued Lizcano after he fled the woman’s home, he shot Officer Jackson, who died later in the hospital. Officer Jackson was remembered by his fellow police as someone who loved his job and always went the extra mile. In Denver, Colorado, an illegal deliberately ran over a Denver polceman in a school cross walk “breaking his legs along with severe internal injuries. This is not anectdotal. This tragedy has occurred over and over in many cities across the U.S.
    • Where is the compassion for all of the people that do not want to see a repeat of 11-Sep-2001, perpetrated by several illegal aliens ?
    • The Center for Immigration Studies in Washington indicates that U.S. households (in year 2002) headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services, but only paid in $16 billion in taxes, which is an annual loss to California taxpayers of $10 billion (year 2002). That was four years ago. It’s even worse now. Total net losses (year 2005) are estimated to be approximately $70 billion per year.
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 3, 2006 6:42 PM
    Comment #145226

    The strategy “Vote the Bum Out” is nothing more than a grassroot movement to do what was done in Herndon, Va yesterday nationwide. Voters put the Mayor and 2 council members out of office for not following the desires of their constituents. Nothing to do with mob rule cause we, the voters, are the government and they are elected to represent us collectively. We’ll miss your participation.

    Posted by: Terry C at May 3, 2006 10:27 PM
    Comment #145228

    Oops, my previous post was intended for Rocky, sorry.

    Posted by: Terry C at May 3, 2006 10:31 PM
    Comment #145241

    d.a.n.,

    Where in that article did is say foreigners were catching TB from Americans? You totally made that up.
    Where in my post did I state that the article explicitly claimed that? I didn’t. I was personally inferring that from the article—it was my opinion, but based on facts reported in the article. I’m sorry if you though otherwise, but for future reference if I start with the phrase “It appears…” it means that I’m not quoting directly from an article. Incidentally, I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here—not that all foreigners are.
    Charles, in the very article you provided a link to, it stated:

    Seven states now bear more than half the total burden of TB disease in the U.S. California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas account for 59.9% of the national case total. The toll continues to be greatest among minority and foreign-born individuals, who consistently have higher rates of TB disease.

    That’s correct. It also states that the majority of tuburculosis cases come from Asia—not across the Mexican border. You may be surprised to learn that I don’t disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease. I just haven’t seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem—or even the main problem. What about legal immigrants? What about tourists? It’s not surprising that foreigners—legal or otherwise—are the bearers of disease. Just ask the Native Americans…

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM
    Comment #145254

    Terry,

    No offence meant but these lines are disturbing to me, and IMHO, they should be disturbing to anyone.

    “So thats what it should be, we should all be unified to “vote the bum’s out.” Obviously we don’t care which bum’s. That makes selection easy, vote against all incumbents in every election democrat or republican or anything in between. Until the demands of the people are met.”


    This line in particular;

    “Obviously we don’t care which bum’s.”

    puts forth the mentality (or lack of), that I, for one, find extremely offensive.
    The reason that we are in this mess to begin with is that we don’t care, and we don’t think.

    If we are to pull the country on a better course, we better be doing a hell of a lot more of both.

    Posted by: Rocky at May 3, 2006 11:57 PM
    Comment #145261
    Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants—the one coming across our Southern border anyway—are catching the disease from us.
    Charles Wager wrote: Where in my post did I state that the article explicitly claimed that? I didn’t. I was personally inferring that from the article—it was my opinion.

    Charles Wager,
    Now you’re waffling.

    Charles Wager wrote: That’s correct. It also states that the majority of tuburculosis cases come from Asia—not across the Mexican border.

    Charles,
    I never argued where particular diseases came from. It “appears” that you assumed that was my point, but it was not.

    At any rate, here is what your linked article said …

    TB’s Racial and Ethnic Disparities

    In 2004, minority populations had rates of TB significantly higher than the overall U.S. average. The 2004 TB case rate among Asians was 20 times higher than that among whites (26.9/100,000 and 1.3/100,000, respectively), while blacks (11.1/100,000) and Hispanics (10.1/100,000) each had rates eight times higher than whites.

    In 2004, for the first time, there were more cases of TB among Hispanics than any other ethnic group. However, the TB rate among Hispanics decreased slightly from 10.3 in 2003 to 10.1 in 2004. This divergent trend was the result of a 3.6 percent increase in the U.S. Hispanic population between 2003 and 2004.

    The primary issue is that illegal aliens provide no controlled way to take precautions to limit spread of diseases. They do not have the vaccinations that many countries require before entering their countries, ect.
    I was once detained (and rightly so) at an airport in Sydney, Australia because my small pox vacination (which I had be vacinated) was not documented correctly on my passport. It was cleared up with a few phone calls, but there are valid, common sense reasons for such procedures.

    Charles Wager,
    Again, the link you provided states:


    The government does recognize the threat to public health that immigrants from countries with weak public health infrastructures could represent. Before being allowed into the country on a visa, legal immigrants must submit to a medical exam and get vaccinated for communicable diseases such as measles and Hepatitis B.

    But, with illegal aliens, there is no exam or vaccinations.
    That’s the problem.

    And, I’d bet if this writer (Mason Stockstill) contracted Tuberculosis from an illegal alien, he would be just calling it a “spot on the wall”.
    His statement is very insensitive to the millions of Americans infected by diseases spread by illegal aliens, who bypassed our public health infrastructures.

    _________________________________

    Obviously we don’t care which bums.

    Well, I have to agree completely with that statement. All bums should be voted out, if they are indeed bums.

    Vote out all the irresponsible incumbent politicians.

    Now, if your contention is that they are not all bums, that’s different. Of course, we should keep the good politicians (if there are any).

    Do you know any ?

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2006 12:09 AM
    Comment #145271
    Now you’re waffling.
    Let me get this straight. You accuse me of making up a quote that I never claimed was a quote, then when I point this out you accuse me of waffling? Whatever.
    I never argued where particular diseases came from. It “appears” that you assumed that was my point, but it was not.
    It may “appear” that I “assumed” that—but it only appears that way if you’re missing my point. There’s no concrete proof that illegal aliens are more of a risk for disease than legal aliens or tourists. Look at the the last article I posted for arguments to the contrary. Here’s the link again:
    “It’s not uncommon historically for people who are already fearful of or inclined to dislike immigrants … to use ‘the immigrant as health menace’ as a way of making their fears and their apprehensions and their dislikes seem to their neighbors to have scientific merit,”
    My point is that Kimberly’s tragedy may be a tragedy, but the story is not a valid criticism of illegal immigrants in and of itself. A hospital is a great place to catch a disease, regardless of the source—that’s a proven fact.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 12:45 AM
    Comment #145277

    Sorry about all the strange characters. I wish Watchblog would fix their software. You should be able to copy a character from Watchblog, and paste it back to Watchblog, without it being mangled in the process.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 1:26 AM
    Comment #145278

    hello charlie, you out there? i guess yous guys proved how potent yous r to the economy. dat boy cot went over like a lead ballon. I only made 50 k that day on da market ya nearly crash.

    what a joke. now we show u a boy cot. we kick u out da countri. if u lucky u maybe the mayor of la talk some rum dum team to la else ya could always burn down the hood show us what 4.

    Posted by: lm at May 4, 2006 1:34 AM
    Comment #145280

    The government does recognize the threat to public health that immigrants from countries with weak public health infrastructures could represent. Before being allowed into the country on a visa, legal immigrants must submit to a medical exam and get vaccinated for communicable diseases such as measles and Hepatitis B.

    ellis island! worked then and it would work again. we could use atlantis as a holding pattern.

    Posted by: lm at May 4, 2006 1:37 AM
    Comment #145282
    we kick u out da countri.
    You’re going to have to learn English better if you ever want to become a legal citizen of the U. S. of A!
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 1:51 AM
    Comment #145291

    D.A.N.,

    In reference to the TB story you posted. I understand that using testimonials and anecdotal stories are effective for rallying people’s fears, but as any scientist knows, you cannot take a single isolated story and then translate it to the system level analysis. Moreover, playing off of people’s fears is simple propaganda and we should all be above that. I much prefer the questionable stats than stories with the intent of eliciting visceral responses from people already so afraid of the world around them.

    Posted by: xander jones at May 4, 2006 3:30 AM
    Comment #145318

    Rocky

    As I see it, when those who are invading our country take to the streets in a show of force to adversely affect our economy, threaten insurrection, disrespect our culture, etc., in an attempt to intimidate us and our elected representatives into doing what they, the illegal aliens and their supporters, want is where the mob rule is taking place. Not with me or anyone who subsribes to the “strategy” we’re referring to. However, in the event you are not an eligible voter or favor open borders, amnesty, “guest” worker programs, the anchor baby policy (unconstitutional in my opinion), etc., then this group, “Vote the Bum Out”, is definetly not for you anyway.

    Rest assured, if the strategy hinted at indiscriminate removal of incumbent representatives, I would pass it up in a heart beat. Instead this is about bringing like minded people together to become a recognizable force to help incumbent politicians and candidates understand they will be held accountable for how they represent us the voters. By the way, this applies to more issues than this one, too.

    If you, as a voter, are interested in regaining control of the alien/immigration issue, and others, I encourage you to bite the bullet and continue reading the entire strategy and if you still have issues, contact the author who has placed a contact button at the very bottom and I’m confident he will be cordial. If you choose not to participate, we’ll miss your input and support.

    Posted by: Terry C at May 4, 2006 8:58 AM
    Comment #145321

    Here’s the link Rocky and anyone else who may be interested. http://www.argumentsake.com/illegalimmigrantprotest/index.php?topic=54.0

    Posted by: Terry C at May 4, 2006 9:08 AM
    Comment #145356

    Terry,

    Replacing an empty suit, with yet another empty suit is just so much mental masturbation.

    Your guy at the website assumes that there are good, solid candidates just waiting in the wings to be elected to serve. Yet he wants to vote everyone out again and again until he gets someone that he thinks will work for him, and meanwhile the country twists in the wind, and nothing really important gets done.
    Look, we all can identify the problems. What we can’t agree on is how to fix them.

    The one thing he actually does get right, is that both parties have come to exist only to get warm bodies elected, but any fool could see that blindfolded.

    The one major problem facing America isn’t immigration, or health care, or Social Security, or terrorism.
    It’s that we have come to the point in America where less than 50% of registered voters even care enough to vote, let alone those that qualify yet haven’t even bothered to register.

    Until that changes nothing else will.


    Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2006 11:23 AM
    Comment #145361

    Dan,

    One of “my guys” is McCain.

    Until someone comes along with a better idea, I see no reason to change that.

    Just voting out the incumbents won’t change anything except the butts in the seats.
    We need real candidates with real ideas, not new asses.

    Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2006 11:44 AM
    Comment #145366
    Rocky wrote: Just voting out the incumbents won’t change anything…

    I could not agree more.
    So, I hope you are not trying to mischaracterize me as advocating that.

    I’ve said many times to keep the good ones.
    But there are few that are very responsible.

    Get rid of the irresponsible ones.
    That would be most of them.

    So, you are in Arizona (obviously).

    Of all the 535 in congress, McCain is not the worst of the worst.

    However, did you know McCain admitted (by his very own words) that he often looks the other way ?

    Also, there was that pork-barrel thing that John McCain tried to sneak in on the end of an defense approprotions BILL. You know … the one for $1 million for the brown tree snake in Guam … at a time when some of our troops didn’t have body armor or armor for their humvees? Want to hear more.

    I guess you also realize that McCain is a staunch supporter of Iraq, and has failed to address the lack of WMD? Also, did you know that McCain wants a guest worker program for illegal aliens? That’s a slap in the face to Americans and all the immigrants in line trying to immigrate legally. Didn’t McCain learn anything from the amnesty in 1986? What McCain is proposing is not much different.

    This is the very thing that everyone does.
    They think their congress person is good.
    They fail to understand how irresponsible all of them are.

    The bar is set so very low.

    Even the best of the worst look the other way.

    You want real candidates?

    Good Luck, if you keep rewarding them by re-electing them no matter how irresponsible they are, no matter how much they look the other way, no matter how much pork barrel they champion, and no matter how much they ignore our pressing problems, as they grow in number and severity, threatening the future and security of the nation.

    Personally, I would not vote for John McCain, because of his plan to go against the voters and introduce a guest worker system that is complicated and essentially an amnesty system that will be unmanageable. If John McCain keeps that up, he may not be in office for very long.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2006 12:13 PM
    Comment #145373

    Oh Rocky, ye of little faith! Check the following articles and continue to tell the world there is no hope.

    Labor Site Backlash Felt at Polls In Herndon

    http://www.numbersusa.com/news?ID=5437

    Anti-Illegal Immigration Forces Share a Wide Tent

    http://www.numbersusa.com/news?ID=5452

    Immigrant rallies fail to shift views on illegal aliens

    http://www.numbersusa.com/news?ID=5453

    Go ahead - you can have the last word.

    Posted by: Terry C at May 4, 2006 12:28 PM
    Comment #145376

    Dan,

    “Personally, I would not vote for John McCain, because of his plan to go against the voters and introduce a guest worker system that is complicated and essentially an amnesty system that will be unmanageable. If John McCain keeps that up, he may not be in office for very long.”

    Like I said, unless someone has a better position other than “I’m for change”, I will continue to support McCain.

    Earlier in one your posts (there are so many words they all blend together :), you made refference to “that great sucking sound”.
    Perot is a perfact example of what I am trying to get at.
    During his campaign for President he said he had some ideas, but wouldn’t say what they were, because he thought someone might steal them.
    Sorry Ross, you’re running for President, not writing a song or a book, or applying for a patent. That great sucking sound was the voters going somewhere else for a candidate.

    My point is that replacing incumbents willy nilly doesn’t solve the problem, it only creates new ones.
    Make no mistake, I am not for keeping the status quo, but replacing one bozo with another isn’t the answer.

    Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2006 12:33 PM
    Comment #145385
    xander jones
    D.A.N., In reference to the TB story you posted. I understand that using testimonials and anecdotal stories are effective for rallying people’s fears, but as any scientist knows, you cannot take a single isolated story and then translate it to the system level analysis. Moreover, playing off of people’s fears is simple propaganda and we should all be above that. I much prefer the questionable stats than stories with the intent of eliciting visceral responses from people already so afraid of the world around them.

    I agree about anecdotal stories.
    Also, if you read the following posts, you see the problem is much more than anecdotal. The problem is not merely anectdotal.
    So, you are in error, and a little effort and research on your part can easily prove it.

    There is overwhelming evidence to show that illegal aliens are spreading diseases to millions of Americans.

    If you don’t beleive it, disprove it. I can provide you with hundreds of studies by universities, doctors, and all have references.

    But, disease is only part of the problem.
    The many reasons have nothing to do with fear mongering, race, color, ethnicity, etc. The following are sufficient to understand the negative impact of massive, unregulated, illegal immigration:

    • increased crime rates;

    • burden on education systems;

    • burden on healthcare systems;

    • burden on hospital systems;

    • burden on welfare systems;

    • burden on Social Security system;

    • burden on Medicaid system;

    • burden on border patrol systems; ever increasing numbers are needed;

    • burden on insurance systems; illegal aliens can/will not pay for damages they cause;

    • burden on law enforcement systems; costing California billions per year;

    • burden on prison systems; 29% of those in state and federal prisons (Sep-2004) are illegal aliens;

    • voter fraud; burden on voting systems;

    Even the detailed study provided by Charles Wager proves that.
    It does not say “no” threat. It says lillte threat, and that is highly debatable based on most other studies by many doctors, medical professionals, and the CDC (not a mere staff writer like Mason Stockstill who has now proclaimed himself as an expert on disease).

    So, if your going to accuse people of listing anecdotal things only, you should at least research it first, see the linked articles, and be more accurate before you accuse others of merely playing off fears. If you don’t think that diseases being spread by illegal aliens is a problem, then you should research it more thoroughly. There are millions of Americans that would disagree with you.

    Characterizations of the illegal alien range from the sympathetic to the xenophobic.

    I’m merely trying to stick to the facts.
    If you can refute the facts, plese do.

    I suggest you read this

    The data is not merely anecdotal.

    Many illegals who cross our borders have tuberculosis. That disease had largely disappeared from America, thanks to excellent hygiene and powerful modern drugs such as isoniazid and rifampin.

    TB’s swift, deadly return now is lethal for about 60 percent of those infected because of new Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDR-TB).6 Until recently MDR-TB was endemic to Mexico. This Mycobacterium tuberculosis is resistant to at least two major antitubercular drugs. Ordinary TB usually is cured in six months with four drugs that cost about $2,000. MDR-TB takes 24 months with many expensive drugs that cost around $250,000 with toxic side effects.57 Each illegal with MDR-TB coughs and infects 10 to 30 people, who will not show symptoms immediately. Latent disease explodes later.

    TB was virtually absent in Virginia until in 2002, when it spiked a 17 percent increase, but Prince William County, just south of Washington, D.C., had a much larger rise of 188 percent. Public health officials blamed immigrants. In 2001 the Indiana School of Medicine studied an outbreak of MDR-TB, and traced it to Mexican illegal aliens. The Queens, New York, health department attributed 81 percent of new TB cases in 2001 to immigrants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ascribed 42 percent of all new TB cases to “foreign born” people who have up to eight times higher incidence. Apparently, 66% of all TB cases coming to America originate in Mexico, Philippines, and Vietnam. Virulent TB outbreaks afflicted schoolteachers and children in Michigan, adults and children in Texas, and policemen in Minnesota. Recently TB erupted in Portland, Maine, and Del Rey Beach, Florida.

    Chagas disease, also called American trypanosomiasis or “kissing bug disease”, is transmitted by the reduviid bug, which prefers to bite the lips and face. The protozoan parasite that it carries, Trypanosoma cruzi , infects 18 million people annually in Latin America and causes 50,000 deaths. This disease also infiltrates America’s blood supply. Chagas affects blood transfusions and transplanted organs. No cure exists. Hundreds of blood recipients may be silently infected.68 After 10 to 20 years, up to 30 percent will die when their hearts or intestines, enlarged and weakened by Chagas, burst.69 Three people in 2001 received Chagas-infected organ transplants. Two died.

    Leprosy, a scourge in Biblical days and in medieval Europe, so horribly destroys flesh and faces it was called the “disease of the soul.”70 Lepers quarantined in leprosaria sounded noisemakers when they ventured out to warn people to stay far away. Leprosy, Hansen’s disease, was so rare in America that in 40 years only 900 people were afflicted. Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy. Leprosy now is endemic to northeastern states because illegal aliens and other immigrants brought leprosy from India, Brazil, the Caribbean, and Mexico.

    Dengue fever is exceptionally rare in America, though common in Ecuador, Peru, Vietnam, Thailand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Mexico. Recently there was a virulent outbreak of dengue fever in Webb County, Texas, which borders Mexico. Though dengue is usually not a fatal disease, dengue hemorrhagic fever routinely kills.

    Polio was eradicated from America, but now reappears in illegal immigrants, as do intestinal parasites. Malaria was obliterated, but now is re-emerging in Texas. About 4,000 children under age five annually in America develop fever, red eyes, “strawberry tongue,” and acute inflammation of their coronary arteries and other blood vessels because of the infectious malady called Kawasaki disease. Many suffer heart attacks and sudden death.

    Hepatitis A, B, and C, are resurging. Asians number 4 percent of Americans, but account for more than half of Hepatitis B cases. Why inoculate all American newborns for Hepatitis B when most infected persons are Asians?

    ____________________________

    Rocky,

    No one is advocating replacing the current, bought-and-paid-for, irresponsible incubments with bozos.

    However, I think bozos could probably do a better job.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2006 1:13 PM
    Comment #145394

    Terry C.,
    Thanks for the links:

    Labor Site Backlash Felt at Polls In Herndon

    I hope more voters (and polls look promising) do the same. Not just based on this issue, but because of our many pressing problems ignored for decades by do-nothing, irresponsible incumbent politicians, as those problems grow in number and severity.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2006 1:49 PM
    Comment #145396

    d.a.n.

    Your welcome - here’s another

    Check this poll out that was sponsored by the Center for Immigration Studies for some current stats on public opinion.

    http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html

    Posted by: Terry C at May 4, 2006 2:03 PM
    Comment #145397

    Terry C,
    Thanks for the new CIS report.
    That is very interesting.
    The percentages make it pretty damn clear.

    I doubt politicians will do anything, but hopefully, voters will do something about it this time, or watch their net losses of $70+ billion per year quadruple (or more).

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2006 2:15 PM
    Comment #145403

    d.a.n.,

    Even the detailed study provided by Charles Wager proves that.
    It does not say “no” threat. It says lillte threat, and that is highly debatable based on most other studies by many doctors, medical professionals, and the CDC (not a mere staff writer like Mason Stockstill who has now proclaimed himself as an expert on disease).
    First, until you can demonstrate that the threat—little or not—is greater for illegal aliens than for legal aliens or tourists, then you have no argument. Second, I’d like to see these “most other studies” you are referring to. I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants. You may discount Mason Stockstill as a staff writer, but his article includes quotes from other professionals—he does not proclaim to be an expert on disease like you suggest. In contrast, the only source you provide is certainly not from a medical professional in the normal sense—it is an essay from a medical lawyer. Furthermore, she is far from unbiased—the author has a declared agenda against illegal aliens for more than medical reasons, as evidenced by her other “essays”. Her essay is filled with a bunch of statistics, but none of them directly link illegal aliens to a rise in disease. There is a lot of spin out there—on both sides of the issue—but I have found very little in the way of conclusive facts.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 2:43 PM
    Comment #145406

    I just know I’m going to regret this, but what the hell….

    You two do understand how telephone polls work, right?

    You do understand the words “1,000 likely voters”, right?

    Do you understand that if I wanted a poll that showed that 55% of Americans were against gay marriage, for instance, that all I have to do is call people in say, Birmingham Alabama.

    Do you understand if I wanted a poll that said the opposite, that I would call people in San Francisco?

    I agree there is a problem. I agree there needs to be change.

    We need to look at our candidates on a case by case basis and weigh the good and the bad of what they have accomplished, and then vote our conscience.

    In our collective fervor for change, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2006 2:51 PM
    Comment #145420

    d.a.n.

    Not exactly a statistic but definitely a sign of the times regarding the health of illegal aliens in general and their presence here. Take a look at this news article & I’m sure you’ll find a couple issues that will chap your butt in addition to the TB thing - HELLO ICE. (lites are on but nobody’s bome)

    “Milford taking harsher stance against illegals than Framingham”

    http://www.milforddailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=91097

    Posted by: Terry C at May 4, 2006 3:55 PM
    Comment #145425

    Another thing to understand about TB is that it is only active and infectious in 10% of the people that have been exposed to it. Legal immigrants are given a skin test for TB, but they are only denied entry if they are actively contagious. Unfortunately, the TB can become active at any time after they enter the country. The same problem exists for foreign travelers to the US, as well as the increasing number of US citizens who are exposed while traveling abroad—although in both these cases there is usually not even a skin test given. This is similar to the situation of illegal immigrants.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 4:25 PM
    Comment #145455

    Charles Wager,

    Your very own linked article, despite the title, proved my point already.

    Even though the title says “little threat”, that does not mean “no threat”.

    BTW, Dr. Cosman, was a medical scientist too, and also taught medical students.

    Mason Stockstill’s article states:


    “Americans should be told that diseases long eradicated in this country — tuberculosis, leprosy, polio, for example — and other extremely contagious diseases have been linked directly to illegals,” the Republican representative told the Business Journal of Phoenix earlier this year.
    There’s a grain of truth in that statement, as the diseases Hayworth mentioned all are contagious. But most experts say there’s little chance any of them will become a significant health risk for anyone other than the people who catch them overseas.

    Once again, my point is substantiated.

    And no where does it say illegal aliens are catching these diseases from Americans.

    Also, the fact that some (not all) diseases (over all) are decreasing in numbers is because of advances in medicine and treatment within the U.S., and the free medical treatment and healthcare being provided to illegal aliens.

    As for traveling foreigners, I never argued that was not a risk. I agree that it is. But, that is a separate issue. Those are not illegal aliens. That is an issue for the CDC. The illegal alien issue is one for law enforcement.

    DECEMBER 2004:
    In the past 40 years, the United States registered a total of 900 cases of the feared Biblical disease—leprosy. Virtually unknown to Americans in the last century, leprosy exceeded 7,000 new cases brought in on the backs of newcomers since 2001. Most of the people infected in America are illegal alien immigrants from leprosy hot spots in Mexico, Brazil, the Caribbean and India.

    “And those are the ones we know about,” Dr. William Levis, attending physician at Bellevue Hospital’s Hansen’s Disease Clinic. “There are probably many, many more.”

    Now known as Hansen’s disease, leprosy arrives with immigrants from crowded, poor countries with scant sanitation. However, its new presence in America has caused 11 clinics to sprout up overnight. In the past six years, Levis and his staff have proved that many patients have contracted the disease without leaving the country. A 73 year old man from Queens, New York and a Jewish man from Westchester County, contracted leprosy without leaving the America. As a result, the disease is now officially endemic to the Northeastern United States for the first time, ever.

    Dr. Lee Reichman, executive director of New Jersey’s Medical Schools National Tuberculosis Center, said, “We sit on the edge of potential catastrophe. Government won’t take this problem seriously, doctors don’t treat it, and the public thinks TB isn’t sexy enough to merit attention.

    Strains of TB once only found in Mexico have moved into Border States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Since three years ago, 16,000 people living in the US developed TB. In 2001, nearly 40 percent of MDR TB cases were in New York and California.

    To show you how fast TB spreads; one infected illegal alien will infect between 10 to 50 Americans—depending on his or her public contact. If that illegal alien has children, now numbering over 1.1 million illegal alien kids in U.S. schools, your kids are at risk. In the Santa Barbara News Press on April 25, 2004, the lead story titled, “Anatomy of an Outbreak” recorded that one illegal alien had spread his TB to 56 other people in the area.

    Once illegal aliens arrive, along with TB, leprosy, Chagas Disease, hepatitis, head lice and AIDS, it becomes our problem. The more extreme illegal alien numbers the more extreme our childrens’ consequences.

    (SOURCES: “CASES OF LEPROSY ON THE RISE IN U.S.” Sharon Lerner, NY Times, 2/20/03 Sources: MOTHER JONES NEWS, March Issue 2003, Dr. Kevin Patterson, ‘THE PATIENT PREDATOR’. Sources: “Timebomb: Global Epidemic of Multi Drug Resistant Diseases,” Lee Reichmann, MD)
    _____________________________________
    USINFO.STATE.GOV

    Health Care for Illegal Aliens are draining tax funds, says federation for American Immigration Reform.

    U.S. Newswire, Dateline Washington, March 4, 2003
    Senators Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) and John McCain (Republican of Arizona) have introduced the Federal Responsibility for Immigrant Health Act, S. 2449, which would require the federal government to reimburse state and local governments for providing health care services to undocumented immigrants.

    The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) told Congress March 4 that in 2000, some $190 million — about 25 percent — of uncompensated costs for hospitals located on the U.S. southwest border were for the treatment of illegal immigrants.
    Federal law requires U.S. hospitals to provide emergency treatment for anyone needing it. But the huge unpaid costs run up by illegal immigrants have led many hospitals to cut back on staffing and services and to increase rates; some hospitals have been forced to close.

    Hospitals Feeling Strain from Illegal Immigrants
    By Dana Canedy, The New York Times, August 25, 2002
    U.S. hospitals, which are required to provide emergency care to critically ill or injured patients regardless of their immigration status, are feeling the financial burden of illegal immigrants, according to this report.
    “By some estimates,” Canedy writes, “hospitals are collectively writing off as much as $2 billion a year in unpaid medical bills to treat the illegal immigrants, who, unlike American citizens and permanent residents, are ineligible for Medicaid.” (Medicaid is a government program that helps pay medical costs for low-income patients.)
    “According to a study released last month by the National Association of Counties, 86 percent of 150 counties nationwide reported an increase in uncompensated health care expenses in the last five years,” Canedy writes. “Of those reporting an increase, 67 percent cited a growing number of immigrants as a factor in the rising costs for county hospitals and rescue services.”

    A Hospital on Border Going Over the Edge
    By David Kelly, The Los Angeles Times, Dateline Bisbee, Arizona, June 20, 2004
    This feature story discusses the financial problems encountered by U.S. hospitals along the Mexico border that treat large numbers of illegal immigrants.
    U.S. law requires that hospitals treat anyone and everyone who shows up in their emergency rooms. Kelly writes: “In a study last year by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition examined health care costs in 28 border counties in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California. It found they had lost $200 million treating illegal immigrants that year.”
    The 13-bed private community hospital in Copper Queen, Arizona, for example, has lost $800,000 in 2003 caring for migrants, and $500,000 the year before. The hospital lies in the “Naco corridor,” where U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested 154,000 illegal immigrants in 2004.
    Kelly writes: “Every day hundred of immigrants set off from Naco, Mexico, six miles from Bisbee, and head north through this ragged edge of Arizona. If they get hurt in the desert or while being smuggled in vans and trucks, they usually wind up at Copper Queen. The facility also take emergency transfers from Naco, which has no hospital.”
    Stephen Lindstrom, medical director at Copper Queen, is quoted as saying: “The numbers are incredible. They are constantly bringing in dehydrated and injured Mexicans, but I don’t think we’ve ever got a dollar.”

    The number of children migrating to the United States has increased tremendously in recent years, and includes temporary visitors, documented and undocumented immigrants, permanent residents, student visa holders, refugees, asylees, and adopted children. Approximately 266,000 children entered the United States as immigrants in 2001,1 and in Minnesota during 1999 more than 50% of refugees entering the state were children under the age of 18 years.2 These children carry a large disease burden, and most of them lack a history of adequate preventive health care. More than 50% of internationally adopted children, regardless of age, sex, and country of origin, will have a previously undiagnosed medical condition, which is identified on initial evaluation in the United States.3 Infectious diseases are the most prevalent conditions identified; of the refugees entering Minnesota in 2000, 53% had positive Mantoux skin test for tuberculosis, 31% had pathogenic parasite infestations, 14.9% had anemia, and 7.5% were hepatitis B carriers.2

    From the CDC:
    During 1986 1995, the number of tuberculosis (TB) cases among foreign- born persons in the United States increased 61%, from 4925 cases (22% of the national total) to 7930 cases (35% of the national total). This increase probably reflected, in part, the immigration of persons from regions of the world that have a high incidence of TB (1). In 1995, 22% of all foreign-born persons with TB (8% of the national total) were born in Mexico; of these, 81% were reported by the four U.S. states bordering Mexico — Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas (2). In 1995, local health departments in these states conducted an epidemiologic study to characterize patterns of immigration and migration among foreign-born Hispanic patients with TB and their behaviors in seeking health care. This report summarizes the findings of the analysis, which indicate that collaborative efforts for controlling TB should include and extend beyond border areas and that drug-susceptibility testing should be conducted for all TB isolates.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2006 7:22 PM
    Comment #145465

    Dan,

    “Most of the people infected in America are illegal alien immigrants from leprosy hot spots in Mexico, Brazil, the Caribbean and India.”

    Can we assume that a fence wouldn’t be a feature in stopping the folks from “Brazil, the Caribbean, and India”?

    Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2006 8:01 PM
    Comment #145477
    Even though the title says “little threat”, that does not mean “no threat”.
    It means “no greater threat”, as in “no greater threat” than foreign travelers, or “no greater threat” than legal immigrants. Or at least it hasn’t been demonstrated that the threat is any greater. I am not trying to claim that illegal immigrants do not catch and/or carry diseases the same as the rest of us. However, I do believe the risk is largely undocumented and being far overblown because it preys on people’s fear.
    Once again, my point is substantiated.
    If your point was that “disease is contagious” then you’ve substantiated it by the section you underlined. I was never denying that disease can be contagious. If this wasn’t your point I think you have to read that paragraph more carefully.

    From the Mother Jones source you cited:

    For wherever there is suspicion between public-health authorities (the term itself is illuminating) and the infected, TB thrives. Illegal workers, migrants, intravenous drug users, all of whom dwell in the various demimondes of a fractured society, are among the most likely to be infected by TB.
    This is a problem, I admit that. However, it does not mean that illegal immigrants are more likely than anyone else to bring disease into the country. What it does means is that they are less likely to seek treatment out of fear once they become infected. Again, I would like to see evidence that illegal aliens are the biggest problem here, as opposed to IV drug users, the homeless, criminals, or any of the other elements of society that are likely to avoid seeking help when they become infected.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 8:35 PM
    Comment #145504

    In 1995, immigrants represented 35 percent of the total reported TB cases in the United States, and the proportion of the total reported TB cases among this group increased from 22 percent to 35 percent in 1995 ( and that was in 1995; it’s worse now ).

    Health officials battle unwanted immigrant: TB
    Influx of lung disease to California poses dual problem of detection and treatment.

    Tuberculosis is also common among immigrants, refugees, and migrant workers from countries where the disease is prevalent. In these patients, organisms responsible for disease are frequently resistant to commonly used antituberculosis drugs, especially isoniazid (INH).

    Health officials say the rise of TB … is largely a consequence of the migration of people from parts of the world where the disease is common. Two-thirds of the cases of TB brought into the United States originated in just three countries: Mexico, the Philippines and Vietnam. (Source: Washington Post, March 18, 2002).

    Charles Wager,
    Want more.
    I have about 40 more sources.
    I’ll have to create a web-page to list all of them, since no more than 3 links can be provided here. I’ll post the link to the web-page as soon as it is finished.
    Like I said, the evidence is overwhelming.
    But, please, continue to believe what you want.

    Also, what you are probably going to discover, over the coming years, after more data and studies become available, is that the magnitude of the problem is even worse than anyone thought. The cost in money in lives to U.S. citizens is staggering. Like wise for the other problems stemming from massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration:

    • increased crime rates;

    • burden on education systems;

    • burden on healthcare systems;

    • burden on hospital systems;

    • burden on welfare systems;

    • burden on Social Security system;

    • burden on Medicaid system;

    • burden on border patrol systems; ever increasing numbers are needed;

    • burden on insurance systems; illegal aliens can/will not pay for damages they cause;

    • burden on law enforcement systems; costing California billions per year;

    • burden on prison systems; 29% of those in state and federal prisons (Sep-2004) are illegal aliens;

    • voter fraud; burden on voting systems;

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2006 9:53 PM
    Comment #145516

    d.a.n.,

    How about if we discuss those sources you listed?

    The first one talks about immigrants, but doesn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, so it does nothing to discredit my assertions.

    The second one I like. Much of it supports my assertions:

    In the United States, inadequate screening of new immigrants means many come here infected but undetected, public health officials say.
    “Foreign students and workers and visitors are not screened for TB when they come to this country; nor are undocumented people,” said Sarah Royce, chief of the Tuberculosis Control Branch of the California health department. “Only refugees are screened, and there are some gaps in that system too.”
    This is what I’ve been saying all along—that legal immigrants and visitors are also bringing disease into the country. So why should I be overly fearful of the illegal ones?
    r. Annette Nitta of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services played down the likelihood of contracting the disease from strangers, however, saying that most people get TB from family members or others sharing the same home. She cited studies indicating that TB transmission often takes at least eight hours of sustained exposure, although it is possible to catch the disease in far less time
    So why should I be overly fearful of illegal immigrants?

    Finally, the third source you provided also doesn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, so it also doesn’t discredit what I’ve been saying. However, I’d like to quote from one part of it:

    The identification and reporting of tuberculosis cases, suspected cases, and contacts is often slow or incomplete, thus delaying treatment and preventive intervention. Some cases are not diagnosed or reported, and contact investigation is not done. This is more likely to occur among the poor, the elderly, the homeless, drug users, and prisoners.
    This is exactly what I was saying above, almost verbatim. The fact that illegal immigrants are fearful of getting medical care makes it more difficult to control disease. However, this same problem is encountered with many other elements of our society. So why should I be overly fearful of illegal immigrants?

    Like I said, the evidence is overwhelming. But, please, continue to believe what you want.
    Likewise.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 10:38 PM
    Comment #145561

    Charles Wager,

    HA! Thank you!

    You just destroyed your own argument completely.

    Charles Wager wrote: … illegal aliens are not bringing diseases …

    That is the primary point of debate.

    Charles Wager wrote: … legal immigrants and visitors are also bringing disease into the country.

    I agree with that, and that is what just destroyed your argument.

    The primary point of debate was whether illegal aliens were bringing disease into the U.S.

    You just said, yourself, that legal immigrants also bring disease.

    Therefore, since illegal aliens are likely to bring just as much (probably more) disease as legal immigrants, then illegal aliens are also bringing disease into the U.S.

    Case closed. But, the circular logic to follow to waffle out of it will be interesting.

    Here are some more glaring contradictions.

    Charles Wager wrote:

    • (1) illegal aliens are not bringing diseases,

    • (2) So it appears the immigrants—the one coming across our Southern border anyway—are catching the disease from us.

    • (3) I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here

    • (4) You may be surprised to learn that I don’t disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease.

    • (5) It’s not surprising that foreigners—legal or otherwise—are the bearers of disease

    • (6) I just haven’t seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem—or even the main problem.

    So, just what exactly are you trying to say?
    You keep contradicting yourself, as follows:

    • (1) is wacky and contradicts what you said in (3) and (4)

    • and (2) and (3) are just as wacky as (1) and also contradicts (4) and (5).

    • and (4) contradicts (1),(2), and (3).

    • and (5) contradicts (1),(2), and (3). So, which is it?

    • and (6) Again, which is it? You keep contradicting yourself. You just said in (4) that “foreigners bring disease” and in (5) that “foreigners—legal or otherwise—are the bearers of disease”.

    Charles Wager,
    Those statements are simply wacky, inconsistent, and contradictory.

    Also, your claims about illegal aliens being afraid to get medical help is wrong too. Illegal aliens don’t seem to be afraid at all any more to seek medical services. Illegal aliens are getting more medical care here (free) in the U.S. than they will get anywhere else. That is why 84 hospitals have closed in California. That is one of the reasons for rising healthcare costs, not to mention rising costs for education, welfare, law enforcement, insurance, disease control, Medicaid, foodstamps, and prisons.

    But, even if illegal aliens were afraid (as you say) to seek help in the U.S., that is not the the fault of the U.S. The illegal aliens’ being here illegally is not our fault.

    Sorry Charles. But, you just agreed (and disagreed, and agreed, and disagreed) with the point I was trying to make all along (that illegal aliens are bringing disease into the U.S.), and your conclusion that illegal aliens are contracting diseases from us is simply false and completely unsubstantiated. In fact, such a conclusion is really reaching. Actually, such a conclusion is wacky.

    By the way, the “Nothing Gringo Day” (the topic of this thread) is racist.
    Gringo is a derogatory term, that is used as an offensive and disparaging term for a foreigner in Latin America, especially an American or English person.

    Charles Wager,
    Do you want defend that too and make some more exuses for illegal aliens?

    [Stay tunned…undoubtedly, more waffling to follow?]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 2:00 AM
    Comment #145577

    d.a.n.,

    Your last post doesn’t really deserve a response, but what the hell…

    You just destroyed your own argument completely.
    Where, in Bizarro world?
    The primary point of debate was whether illegal aliens were bringing disease into the U.S. You just said, yourself, that legal immigrants also bring disease.
    Sorry, do not pass Go! That’s incorrect. The primary point that I’ve been making is not whether illegal aliens were bringing disease into the U.S., but that unless you can demonstrate that they’re any more of a health risk than legal aliens or visitors then this “health risk” complaint against illegal immigration doesn’t hold water. Your inability to understand that this is my primary point is part of the problem.

    Let’s go over my so-called “contradictory” statements:

    (1) I would address this one, but you apparently twisted my words so much that I can’t find where I said that by doing a search on this thread. If you let me know which post it is I’ll comment.

    (2) This one you took way the hell out of context. It was based on the article I posted, and was a conclusion drawn from a specific statistic in the article, which stated that the percentage of Hispanics with TB had decreased even as the number of immigrants had increased. It’s simple math—try it. By the way, it would help if you stop thinking in binary—when I say “immigrants” that does not automatically mean “all immigrants”. It could just as easily mean “some immigrants”, or “many immigrants”, as it did in this case.

    (3) See (2). Especially the part about binary thinking.

    Actually, no need to go on, because your grand logical coup falls apart as soon as you take things in context and stop thinking in all or nothing terms. I could apply such “logic” to everything you’ve posted here and shred all your claims in the same way. It’s easy when you start inventing your own logic.

    Also, your claims about illegal aliens being afraid to get medical help is wrong too. Illegal aliens don’t seem to be afraid at all any more to seek medical services.
    This is the only concession I made to you, and you go and blow it away by contradicting yourself—it was one of the very sources you posted that stated that illegal aliens are afraid to seek medical help. Are you saying your sources are not reliable? The idea that illegal aliens are afraid to seek medical help was the one fact making it possible that illegal aliens spread disease more quickly than legal aliens or visitors. If, as you now claim, this is not true—then there’s absolutely no grounds to claim that illegal aliens spread disease any faster than legal aliens.
    But, even if illegal aliens were afraid (as you say) to seek help in the U.S., that is not the the fault of the U.S.
    I never said it was. Case closed. By the way, note that I never once claimed that illegal aliens are not taxing our health care system. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t—that’s a discussion for another day.
    your conclusion that illegal aliens are contracting diseases from us is simply false and completely unsubstantiated.
    So your binary thinking only works in your favor? You’re claiming that it is physically impossible for an illegal alien to ever, under any circumstances, contract a disease from an American citizen?
    In fact, such a conclusion is really reaching. Actually, such a conclusion is wacky.
    I agree! You should think things through before making such wild claims! (See how easy it is to shred arguments when you make up your own logic?)
    By the way, the “Nothing Gringo Day” (the topic of this thread) is racist…. Do you want defend that too and make some more exuses for illegal aliens?
    Where did that come from? You know full well from another thread that I’m against all racist statements—no matter which side it comes from—and it’s very uncool of you to try to insinuate otherwise. In addition, you’re under the false impression that I’m a supporter of illegal immigration. I never once said that (look back, I’ll wait). Just because I don’t support unsubstantiated, fear-mongering claims doesn’t mean that I’m an illegal-alien-hugger.
    Stay tunned…undoubtedly, more waffling to follow?
    So this is your get-out-of-jail-free card for when I contradict your faulty binary logic? All you have to do is call me a waffler—no matter what I say—and it means you win? Did you learn that technique from Bush?
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 3:18 AM
    Comment #145600

    Charles Wager,

    More waffling and contradictions (as predicted).
    Statements (1),…,(6) are simply contradictory (below).

    No two (or binary?) ways about it.
    These are your statements …

    Charles Wager wrote:

    • (1) I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants. (obviously non-sequitur, unless you are going to assert that illegal aliens are not bringing disease with them, or as you assert in your next statement…they are “catching the disease from us”)

    • (2) So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.

    • (3) I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here.

    • (4) You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease. (so which is it?)

    • (5) It’s not surprising that foreigners—legal or otherwise are the bearers of disease.

    • (6) I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem—or even the main problem.

    So, which is it?
    Try to spin that.
    You say illegal aliens are “catching the disease from us”, and then you say It’s not surprising that foreigners, legal or otherwise, are the bearers of disease.
    That is contradictory.
    So, what’s this binary nonsense? A clever distraction?

    You tried to say (several times) that illegal aliens are catching diseases from us, and then you said they are bringing disease. Which is it? Both?

    Charles Wager wrote: The primary point that I’ve been making is not whether illegal aliens were bringing disease into the U.S., but that unless you can demonstrate that they’re any more of a health risk than legal aliens or visitors then this “health risk” complaint against illegal immigration doesn’t hold water.
    Charles Wager, First, you wrote they don’t bring disease; they “are catching the disease from us.” Then you said legal immigrants bring disease. Therefire, that means illegal aliens bring disease also. Since illegal aliens are here illegally, those are avoidable diseases, just like the crime by illegal aliens. So that is a valid “health risk” complaint and millions of infected Americans would agree.
    Charles Wager wrote: The idea that illegal aliens are afraid to seek medical help was the one fact making it possible that illegal aliens spread disease more quickly than legal aliens or visitors.
    It was true at one time, but not so much any more, as evidenced by the numerous hospitals and E.R.s being overrun by illegal aliens. There is no contradiction on my part, since I never agreed with that one assertion in the article (that illegal aliens are afraid to seek medical attention). The problem is that they don’t receive medical attention soon enough to avoid spreading disease to many people, like the one illegal alien that sperad TB to 56 people. But, even if it is true in some places to some degree, is not the issue.
    Charles Wager wrote: By the way, note that I never once claimed that illegal aliens are not taxing our health care system. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. That’s a discussion for another day.
    When you are ready, let me know. Do you want to challenge whether illegal aliens burden our healthcare systems? If so, that assertion can be easily trounced also.
    d.a.n wrote: By the way, the “Nothing Gringo Day” (the topic of this thread) is racist … Do you want to defend that too and make some more exuses for illegal aliens?

    OK, you’re right. I apologize for that question, even though it technically is only a question.

    Like I said, I hope they keep protesting this way.

    • Only in America can illegal aliens march and protest , wave flags of their homeland, and disrespect the very citizens of the nation they are demanding citizenship from.

    • Only in America can illegal aliens receive free education, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, foodstamps, free healthcare, and then demand to cut to the front of the line, and demand citizenship.

    • Only in America can illegal aliens get jobs and pay no taxes (50% don’t pay income taxes).

    • Only in America can illegal aliens get a job in the White House without a background check, like Salvodor Martinez-Gonzalez (seen here with VP Cheney and his wife Lynn), who set up social functions in the White House, and moved about freely until Jan-2003 when he was indicted for illegal re-entry into the U.S. and possession of falsified documents and ID).

    • Only in America can illegal aliens vote.

    • Only in America can 3+ million illegal aliens receive amnesty (as in 1986) and then show their gratitude by inviting and harboring their 20 closest relatives (also illegal aliens)

    • Only in America can illegal aliens try to blackmail the citizens of the country they are in for amnesty, even though illegal aliens cost U.S. citizens net losses of over $70 billion a year (not even including crime, disease, and job displacement).

    • Only in America can illegal aliens be arrested on an average of 13 times; being released over and over to repeat the same offenses over and over.

    • Only in America can illegal aliens drive about without a drivers’ license or auto insurance.

    • Only in America can illegal aliens run across the border at the last moment, give birth to their new anchor-baby (like the 2000 born in Laredo, TX in 2005), and receive instant citizenship, and allow the illegal alien parents and family to receive Blue Passports, benefits, welfare, healtcare, etc.

    • Only in an American city (e.g. Los Angeles) can 95% of all homicide arrest warrants be for illegal aliens.

    • Only in America can illegal aliens overrun E.R.s and hospitals, forcing American citizens to wait, and die.

    • Only in America can illegal aliens be allowed to flood across the border by the millions per year, and perpetrate twice as many homicides per year as the norm.

    • Only in America can illegal aliens be arrested over and over for drunk driving and be released over and over due to prison overcrowding by illegal aliens (i.e. already, 29% of all incarcerated in federal, state, and local prisons are illegal aliens).

    • Only in America can U.S. tax payers be used and abused by (1)greedy employers of illegal aliens (the puppeteers), (2)equally greedy, bought-and-paid-for, incumbent politicians (the puppets), who will do anything for votes and cheap labor for their greedy puppeteers, and (3)illegal aliens demanding to cut to the front of the line for legal immigration.

    • Only in America can law abiding people, trying to immigrate legally, be crowded out of line by illegal aliens (as evidenced above by Rodney Brown).

    • Only in America do voters keep re-electing the very same irresponsible incumbents that keep stickin’ it to them.

    On second thought, maybe illegal aliens can run this country better.
    Our do-nothing government created this problem.
    They want votes and cheap labor (an underpaid/underclass).
    They should be held accountable.

    • Stop Repeat Offenders.
    • Don’t Re-Elect Them !
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:37 AM
    Comment #145660

    This is my take on diseases brought in from foreigners. Illegal and legal immigrants both do bring some diseases into the country. Tourists as well. The difference is control and acceptability. The U.S. can exercise control on who and how many to let in. How many is acceptable, or how much risk the country is willing to handle. This includes immigrants regardless of their health conditions such as Cuban and Asian boat refugees. Crowded boats are breeding grounds for diseases, and the government knows that. The country does it for humanitatian and compassionate reasons. Also, naturalized citizens can bring over their foreign families that can carry diseases. As for tourists, most countries don’t require medical screening since it is for a short stay and for other reasons. So basically, diseases is an inherent risk for any visitor, but it is something a country can exercise control and how much risk a country is willing to take since it goes through a legal process. By the way, internally, the U.S. has its own disease problems as well.

    When it comes illegal immigration, there is no control of any type and the numbers will exceed what the country is willing take or able to handle. Especially when illegal immigration is out of control such as the 12+ millions in the country already and increasing. Also, If the country wants to implement stricter control for certain diseases in the future, illegal immigration will completely bypass that and in large numbers.

    Posted by: Daniel at May 5, 2006 1:44 PM
    Comment #145702

    d.a.n.,

    This was an enjoyable debate at first. However, I find that when it reaches the point where my posts are taken out of context, distorted, and lied about it is time to bow out. I find that when my posts are attacked and the attacker refuses to address my counter-points it is time to bow out. I find that when the issue itself is being overlooked to engage in what I like to refer to as “semantic rape”, it is time to bow out.

    Writing on this blog takes time away from other productivity, and I’m not going to do it just to win a cat fight which is no longer based on rationality. So enjoy your Bizarro World victory. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume you’re completely unable to understand the distinction I’m trying to make rather than simply refusing to acknowledge it.

    I invite any other reader to go through our posts (if you can bear it) and see for yourself who is “waffling” and “contradictory” here. I think everything productive that could come out of this particular discussion has already been posted, and the posts speak for themselves.

    Daniel,

    When it comes illegal immigration, there is no control of any type and the numbers will exceed what the country is willing take or able to handle.
    Your point about control is valid, which is why I am (like most of the country) personally for regaining control over immigration. However, when it comes to health control we are not currently exerting any more control over travelers (and not much more control over legal immigrants) than we are over illegal immigrants. In one single year the number of foreign travelers we receive is on par with the total number of illegal immigrants we’re estimated to have. Until this changes (and I’m not saying it should) there’s no reason for this fear-mongering “illegal aliens are infested” soapbox that some people choose to stand on.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 3:55 PM
    Comment #145715

    Charles, I think you and I do agree on a major point. What I like emphasize is some legal immigrants do go through a medical screening ( and criminal check) as opposed to none for illegal immigration. Not all of the legal immigrants, but many do. I know it is far from perfect. We also have not accepted many high risk refugees like we did during the 70’s and 80’s. Just because legal immigration do pose a health risk, this does not provide any jusification for illegal immigation. Disease is one of the risk (along with crime, welfare, etc) a country will have to accept with legal immigration and a country can only take so much. That is my point. Illegal immigration provides addtional risk which the country does not want or authorized. Of course, there are also other important reasons against illegal immigration as well which have been discussed by many people. I think we all have put forth our viewpoints well on the disease issue already here.

    Posted by: Daniel at May 5, 2006 4:21 PM
    Comment #145728
    Illegal immigration provides addtional risk which the country does not want or authorized. Of course, there are also other important reasons against illegal immigration as well which have been discussed by many people.
    Agreed, and taking all the reasons together I am certainly in favor of stricter control. I was playing a sort of devil’s advocate here, deliberately not mentioning the other important reasons in order to concentrate on the “health hazard” one, which I believe is being overblown. I think I’m just tired of fear being used as a device to drive the American people.

    I spend 3-4 weeks every year in various 3rd world countries. I don’t spend this time locked inside a Hyatt either; I spend it avoiding the tourist traps and interacting with local people as much as possible. Changes are, I’m just as likely to bring back an infestation as your average illegal alien, and I could stroll back in without a second glance from a customs guard and begin infesting my neighbors. I can’t afford great health insurance, and so I’m likely to wait awhile before deciding that I’m sick enough to seek medical attention. More people are traveling in and out of this country than ever before. Think of the SARS panic we had recently. Should we be mortally afraid of catching a disease? Probably not.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 5:01 PM
    Comment #145767
    Charles Wager wrote: d.a.n., This was an enjoyable debate at first. However, I find that when it reaches the point where my posts are taken out of context, distorted, and lied about it is time to bow out.

    Nothing was taken out of context.
    You stated what you stated.
    What started all of this was when I challenged your statement:

    Charles Wager wrote:
    So it appears the immigrants, the ones coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.

    Those are your words.
    You wrote that.
    I challenged it.
    That’s all.
    No semantics.
    No games.

    Charles Wager wrote: I find that when my posts are attacked and the attacker refuses to address my counter-points it is time to bow out.
    I addressed in detail all that you wrote (sentence-by-sentence). If I missed something, tell me exactly what it was and I’ll be happy to address it.
    Charles Wager wrote: I find that when the issue itself is being overlooked to engage in what I like to refer to as “semantic rape”, it is time to bow out.

    Those are conclusions. Not facts.
    When statements, especially when placed side-by-side, reveal obvious contradictions, it does not equate to “semantic rape”, “binary logic”, etc.

    Charles Wager wrote: Writing on this blog takes time away from other productivity, and I’m not going to do it just to win a cat fight which is no longer based on rationality.
    What ever. Suit yourself. Like I said, this whole thing started when you said …
    Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the ones coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.
    … and I challenged it. You then tried to bring in other issues, and you never proved that immigrants are catching the diseases from us. If you want to skirt the issue, obscure the details, say the debate was about something else, cloud the issues, etc., fine. But don’t be surprised when other people challenge those statements.
    Charles Wager wrote: So enjoy your Bizarro World victory. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume you’re completely unable to understand the distinction I’m trying to make rather than simply refusing to acknowledge it.
    Look closey. You are looking in the mirror. I believe you are merely upset because you were challenged by someone for saying …
    Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the ones coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.
    … and you were then never able to back it up with facts.
    Charles Wager wrote: I invite any other reader to go through our posts (if you can bear it) and see for yourself who is “waffling” and “contradictory” here. I think everything productive that could come out of this particular discussion has already been posted, and the posts speak for themselves.

    Interesting. So, you want someone else to come to your rescue?
    Fine. I would like them to explain the following, which is central to the debate about whether or not immigrants are (as you say) catching diseases from us …

    Charles Wager,
    Your statements were contradictory, as demonstrated here … Charles Wager wrote::

    • (1) I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants. [that obviously doesn’t make sense; there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens]

    • (2) So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us. [that was never proven and never will be, since it is false]

    • (3) I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here. [again, that was never proven and never will be, since it is also false]

    • (4) You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease. [that is in contrast to your previous statement that they are catching diseases from us] (so which is it?)

    • (5) It’s not surprising that foreigners—legal or otherwise are the bearers of disease. [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statement that they are catching diseases from us]

    • (6) I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem—or even the main problem.
    [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it; many previously eradicated diseases are making a come back]

    Charles Wager wrote: I spend 3-4 weeks every year in various 3rd world countries. I don’t spend this time locked inside a Hyatt either; I spend it avoiding the tourist traps and interacting with local people as much as possible. Changes are, I’m just as likely to bring back an infestation as your average illegal alien, and I could stroll back in without a second glance from a customs guard and begin infesting my neighbors. I can’t afford great health insurance, and so I’m likely to wait awhile before deciding that I’m sick enough to seek medical attention. More people are traveling in and out of this country than ever before. Think of the SARS panic we had recently. Should we be mortally afraid of catching a disease? Probably not.

    Charles Wager,
    I don’t think it is over-blowing the issue by stating the facts stemming from disease spread by illegal aliens or crime by illegal aliens.
    Crime and disease by illegal aliens are things that should have never happened.

    Sure … nobody is disputing the potential for disease by tourists and legal immigrants.
    That’s a risk we accept.
    But not the unncessary cost, misery, and lives lost due to disease and crime by illegal aliens.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 7:35 PM
    Comment #145771
    Daniel wrote: This is my take on diseases brought in from foreigners. Illegal and legal immigrants both do bring some diseases into the country. Tourists as well. The difference is control and acceptability. The U.S. can exercise control on who and how many to let in. How many is acceptable, or how much risk the country is willing to handle. This includes immigrants regardless of their health conditions such as Cuban and Asian boat refugees. Crowded boats are breeding grounds for diseases, and the government knows that. The country does it for humanitatian and compassionate reasons. Also, naturalized citizens can bring over their foreign families that can carry diseases. As for tourists, most countries don’t require medical screening since it is for a short stay and for other reasons. So basically, diseases is an inherent risk for any visitor, but it is something a country can exercise control and how much risk a country is willing to take since it goes through a legal process. By the way, internally, the U.S. has its own disease problems as well.

    When it comes illegal immigration, there is no control of any type and the numbers will exceed what the country is willing take or able to handle. Especially when illegal immigration is out of control such as the 12+ millions in the country already and increasing. Also, If the country wants to implement stricter control for certain diseases in the future, illegal immigration will completely bypass that and in large numbers.

    Daniel,
    I could not agree more.
    The problems facing the CDC are significiantly magnified (possibly out of control) when 12+ millions illegal aliens (an inflow of about 1 million per year) are bypassing all of their efforts to protect people in the U.S.

    And, there is no doubt that illegal aliens are bringing disease with them. Especially when some of the diseases were previously eradicated or non-existent in the U.S.

    It is also logical to conclude that illegal aliens bring just as much disease (perhaps more?) as legal immigrants or tourists.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 7:46 PM
    Comment #145776
    Nothing was taken out of context. You stated what you stated. What started all of this was when I challenged your statement:

    Charles Wager wrote:
    So it appears the immigrants, the ones coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.

    I adressed this in particular, and explained how you took it out of context. You ignored my response and continued your rant, which falls apart as soon as you put this one statment in context.

    You distorted my words.
    I corrected you.
    You ignored my response.
    That’s all.
    All semantics.
    All games.

    I’ll give you one last chance. Answer the questions I posed to you:

    your conclusion that illegal aliens are contracting diseases from us is simply false and completely unsubstantiated.
    Those are your words. Are you claiming that it is physically impossible for an illegal alien to ever, under any circumstances, contract a disease from an American citizen? Are you claiming this has never happened?

    If you don’t answer these questions, without waffling, then I’m done with you.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 8:38 PM
    Comment #145795

    d.a.n.,

    You previously posted:

    On second thought, maybe illegal aliens can run this country better.

    Those are your words. They sounds very anti-American to me. They sounds very pro-illegal alien. It sounds very much like you think any given illegal alien could govern this country better than any American citizen.

    Or perhaps, just perhaps, the world is not so black and white (i.e, binary). Perhaps I should take your statement, look at the surrounding context, allow room for sarcasm and exaggeration, make a judgement as to how serious you were when you wrote it or whether it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, and then finally come to an educated guess as to what you really meant and respond to what I believe your intent was instead of the actual words you used…and do all this for the purposes of improving communication and furthering the discussion…

    Nah! Why should I, when you don’t bother extending me the same courtesy? Instead, I’ll just post your comment back ad-nausuem and proclaim that you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American. After all, this whole thing started when you said …

    d.a.n. wrote: On second thought, maybe illegal aliens can run this country better.

    Which definitely means you love illegal aliens and have no respect for Americans. Yet although you said …

    d.a.n. wrote: On second thought, maybe illegal aliens can run this country better.

    … you were then never able to back it up with facts. Yet after you said …

    d.a.n. wrote: On second thought, maybe illegal aliens can run this country better.

    … you then went on to say the opposite, by claiming you are against illegal aliens. But contradicting yourself doesn’t change the fact that you said …

    d.a.n. wrote: On second thought, maybe illegal aliens can run this country better.

    If you want to skirt the issue, obscure the details, say the debate was about something else, cloud the issues, etc., fine. But don’t be surprised when other people use those same techniques against you!

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM
    Comment #145803
    • Charles Wager wrote: I’ll give you one last chance. Answer the questions I posed to you:

    OOOOOOOOOooohhhhh …
    Aye Aye, el Capitan !

    • Charles Wager’s demands a question to: Are you claiming that it is physically impossible for an illegal alien to ever, under any circumstances, contract a disease from an American citizen? Are you claiming this has never happened?

    The ANSWER is below, but that question is stupid.
    It is a lame tactic.
    It in no way diminishes the ridiculous of the following statement, and reveals how weak and twisted all supporting arguments are …

    • Charles Wager wrote:
      So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.

    … and then much waffling and silly questions (such as that above) followed in a desperation to defend the ridiculous statement (above).
    The question clearly indicates a “grasping for straws”.

    You’re diggin’ your own hole deeper and deeper, as you attempt such lame questions to defend an unsustainable assertion that immigrants “are catching the disease from us”.

    Sure, that statement, technically could be interpreted as “at least one” immigrant caught a disease from us. But, the statement is not quantitative or qualified. Thus, it is offered as a general statement. To back-peddle and now characterize it as something else is waffling. So, the description “waffling” is well deserved.

    • Charles Wager wrote: If you don’t answer these questions, without waffling, then I’m done with you.

    Interesting.
    You are free to quit any time you want.
    Is this how you debate?
    Pose silly questions and demand answers?
    Do you realize how worried I am now by your demand and warning of consequences?

    And the thing is, as you demand people answer your questions, they already have (many times)?

    Back to the issue that you would like to skirt around …

    I challenged your statement …

    • Charles Wager wrote:
      So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.

    … and you now demand an answer to the question …

    • Charles Wager’s question:
      Are you claiming that it is physically impossible for an illegal alien to ever, under any circumstances, contract a disease from an American citizen? Are you claiming this has never happened?

    ANSWER: Of course it is possible for anyone with a disease to spread it to other people. So? The question is stupid, and in no way supports your generalization …

    • Charles Wager wrote:
      So it appears the immigrants, the ones coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.

    That statement is simply stupid, and the question is too.

    If you are now asserting that your statement was not intended to mean “in general”, then that is waffling.

    Anything more questions, el Captitan ?

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:58 PM
    Comment #145808
    Charles Wager wrote: d.a.n., You previously posted:
    d.a.n wrote: On second thought, maybe illegal aliens can run this country better.
    Charles Wager wrote: They sounds very anti-American to me. They sounds very pro-illegal alien.

    Charles Wager,
    Once again, your statement indicates desperation and ridiculousness that knows no bounds.

    My statement was obviously, as most people are intelligent enough to comprehend by it, that that is an intentionally absurd statement designed to portray how ridiculously irresponsible, and incompetent our congress is for creating this problem, and ignoring it (as with many problems) until they are out of control.

    Your statement that concludes that I am anti-American reveals desperation and ignorance.

    Also, your statement was one that you attempted to pass off as fact as if it was supported by a linked article …

    • Charles Wager wrote:
      So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.

    • Charles Wager, If you want to skirt the issue, obscure the details, say the debate was about something else, cloud the issues, etc., fine. But don’t be surprised when other people use those same techniques against you!

    My statement …

    On second thought, maybe illegal aliens can run this country better.

    … was a very obvious attempt to display disgust with our irresponsible congress. It was obviously not a serious statement as yours was in which you made a statement and tried (unsuccessfully) to defend it.

    There’s a difference, and most other people recognize the obvious difference, even if you obviously can’t.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 11:13 PM
    Comment #145831

    d.a.n.,

    Nice waffling yourself there. You couldn’t just answer the question, could you? First you had to preface it with 2+ pages of disclaimer to try to anticipate where I was going with it. Why so worried? But before we get to that…

    So your answer in no way supports the generalization you made in your previous statement.
    So you finally admit that it is a generalization? Good. That means maybe we’re finally getting somewhere. You’re exactly right—it’s generalized language. Generalizations can cut both ways. I said “immigrants are…”. This is a generalization. This could be taken to mean “all immigrants are always…”, which is what you seem to believe and are harping on. That is your assumption. However, it could also (more legitimately) be taken to mean “some immigrants are in some cases…” The comment was also given tonque-in-cheek, sort of like your “maybe illegal immigrants can run this country better” comment. So tell me, d.a.n., why do you assume what I intended by my generalization? Why am I accused of waffling because you made the wrong assumption and won’t accept my clarification (not that you asked for it in the first place)?

    Now let’s go back to the question/answer session:

    ANSWER: Of course it is possible for anyone with a disease to spread it to other people. So?
    So you agree that it is possible, yet your previous statement was:
    your conclusion that illegal aliens are contracting diseases from us is simply false and completely unsubstantiated.
    It cannot be “simply false”, since you admit it is possible. Was it Unsubstantiated? Perhaps. It was a stretch (that was the tongue-in-cheek part). It was also an opinion, which is one of the first things I clarified about it once I realized you had no sense of humor. Was it discredited by any of your sources? No. Was the statment, whether true of false, my primary point—not by a long shot. Are you trying to reframe the entire discussion to make it about that statement? Absolutely.

    Do I have any more questions? Yes, just one. Aside from harping on the above statement, your entire argument that I am contradicting myself is based on one other statement you claimed I made:

    (1) illegal aliens are not bringing diseases,
    Your claim that I ever said this is false and completely unsubstantiated. I pointed this out above, but you chose to ignore it. Now, either admit you were mistaken about this or show me where I said it. Keep in mind what you said about generalizations above—I would hate for you to become a hypocrite by claiming you were generalizing what I said..


    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 1:05 AM
    Comment #145833
    My statement was obviously, as most people are intelligent enough to comprehend by it, that that is an intentionally absurd statement…
    Exactly, and that’s how I took it. Most people are intelligent enough to comprehend the point I was trying to make as well, and to detect that my comment was at least slightly tongue-in-cheek. Yet you choose to deliberately misinterpret it. What does that say about you?
    Also, your statement was one that you attempted to pass off as fact as if it was supported by a linked article …
    It was in fact supported by a linked article, however loosely. Did I ever say it was fact? No. I said that “it appears…”, which almost by definition implies an opinion. Since that was not obvious enough for you, I clarified it for you immediately afterward.
    It was obviously not a serious statement as yours was in which you made a statement and tried (unsuccessfully) to defend it.
    With one breath you claim my statement was serious, with the other you claim it is wacky. Here’s a hint: if something appears completely absurd and wacky, it could possibly be because humor was intended, however dry.
    There’s a difference, and most other people recognize the obvious difference, even if you obviously can’t.
    And you accuse me of showing desperation and ridiculousness that knows no bounds? You can dish it out all day, but you can’t take even a single bite when it’s returned to you…
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 1:40 AM
    Comment #145836
    Charles Wager (a.k.a. waffler) wrote: d.a.n., Nice waffling yourself there. You couldn’t just answer the question, could you? First you had to preface it with 2+ pages of disclaimer to try to anticipate where I was going with it. Why so worried? But before we get to that…
    Nonsense. I answered it and even bolded the ANSWER as follows …
    ANSWER: Of course it is possible for anyone with a disease to spread it to other people. So? The question is stupid, and in no way supports your generalization
    Charles Wager wrote: So you finally admit that it is a generalization? Good. That means maybe we’re finally getting somewhere. You’re exactly right—it’s generalized language. Generalizations can cut both ways. I said “immigrants are”. This is a generalization. This could be taken to mean “all immigrants are always”, which is what you seem to believe and are harping on.
    Wrong. When you state it as you did, it means most. That’s what you tried to assert, but you were challenged on it, and now you’re mad because you got caught.
    Charles Wager wrote: Why am I accused of waffling because you made the wrong assumption and won’t accept my clarification.
    Because your clarification was an obvious demonstration of waffling.
    Charles Wager wrote: So you agree that it is possible, yet your previous statement was: your conclusion that illegal aliens are contracting diseases from us is simply false and completely unsubstantiated.
    That’s because you were trying to assert most illegal aliens and you subsequently tried to defend that assertion (as demonstrated below). What you are doing now is still waffling. In fact, there are few examples of waffling as good as yours.
    Charles Wager wrote: It was a stretch (that was the tongue-in-cheek part). It was also an opinion, which is one of the first things I clarified about it once I realized you had no sense of humor.
    Finally, we get to the truth. It was a stretch. More like a lie. It was not really tongue-in-cheek statement, since you subsequently tried to defend it (unsuccessfully, which irritates you). As for sense of humor, humor has nothing to do with it, since it was never tongue-in-cheek as you claim. You tried to pull a fast one, you got caught, and then you made it ten times worse by trying to salvage your blunder with endless waffling.
    Charles Wager wrote: (1) illegal aliens are not bringing diseases, Your claim that I ever said this is false and completely unsubstantiated.

    You are splitting hairs. But, true, those are not your exact words.
    Your exact words are just as ridiculous, which are:

    Charles Wager wrote:
    So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us

    You clearly meant more than one or two.
    Your meaning was clear.
    You have been trying to waffle out of it ever since as demonstrated below.
    To now deny what you meant is as ridiculous as the statement itself.
    Besides, what you meant was clear since you attempted to substantiate it with a link to an article.

    Regardless of what you believe, illegal aliens are bringing a lot of disease into the U.S. And the number of illegal aliens catching diseases from us is much less than the diseases they are giving us. If you don’t believe that, fine. Please believe what ever you want as El Capitan in Bizarro land.

    Charles Wager wrote: d.a.n.,
    • In 2004, for the first time, there were more cases of TB among Hispanics than any other ethnic group. However, the TB rate among Hispanics decreased slightly from 10.3 in 2003 to 10.1 in 2004. This divergent trend was the result of a 3.6 percent increase in the U.S. Hispanic population between 2003 and 2004
    Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the ones coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.

    Then your next statement tried to defend that ridiculous statement above (i.e… . “catching disease from us.”) with …

    Charles Wager wrote:
    Case in point:
    Dr. Howard Markel, of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan, said it?more likely that a traveler or tourist would bring a dangerous infection to the United States than an undocumented immigrant.

    The following statement followed, which was also trying to defend the statement above (i.e… . “catching disease from us.”):

    Charles Wager wrote:
    Where in my post did I state that the article explicitly claimed that? I didn’t. I was personally inferring that from the article, it was my opinion, but based on facts reported in the article.

    So, you were not ever just kidding, as I was.
    My statement (i.e. d.a.n wrote: On second thought, maybe illegal aliens can run this country better.) was obviously ridiculous, and its intent was to show the total disgust with our irresponsible congress.

    That’s the difference.
    My statement was obviously ridiculous, and I never tried to defend it as a fact.
    However, your statement was offered as fact, and a linked article was provided in an attempt to support the your statement. In fact, you said it was your opinion based on facts reported in the article. However, nothing in the article supported your statement.

    Face it Charles Wager,
    You made a statement that you claim was tongue-in-cheek, but tried hard to defend it, and then waffled all over the place, and then finally admitted it was merely intended as tongue-in-cheek. You would have been much better off if you had come clean in the beginning and said it was only tongue-in-cheek, instead of trying to salvage it, and only end up looking more foolish.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 1:57 AM
    Comment #145837

    Charles Wager, If your statement …

    So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.
    … was merely tongue-in-cheek, kidding, not-serious, or what ever (which I doubt), then why did you not say so much sooner?
    I’ll tell you why.
    Because it was not just kidding.
    You meant it, which is why you waffled all over the place trying to defend it, split hairs over subtle and ridiculously contrived plays on words, and only after it looked as though the statement could no longer be salvaged or defendied, you finally admit that it was tongue-in-cheek.

    Yeah, right.
    And I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 2:07 AM
    Comment #145842
    Wrong. When you state it as you did, it means most.
    Bullshit. That is your opinion, which is totally false and unsubstantiated.
    You are splitting hairs.
    Again, you can dish it out but you can’t take it. You are engaging in exactly the same “waffling” that you accuse me of. Your whole case is nothing but semantic rape and split hairs. You may not be a racist, but you are a hypocrite.
    You clearly meant more than one or two.
    Actually yes, I did. I still do. So what? The words you attributed to me still do not follow from that statement, no matter how much you would like to pretend they do. They are still completely false and unsubstantiated. Since your whole rampage was based on this one accusation, all your claims that I contradicted myself are thus bogus.
    It was not really tongue-in-cheek statement, since you subsequently tried to defend it.
    The only thing I ever defended as substantiated fact was that I never claimed that the statement was actually printed in the article. The fact that I made an attempt to clarify your gross misunderstanding of what I meant by it in no way implies that it was not tongue-in-cheek. Everything else is your misconceptions piled on top of your self-delusions and distortions. All your other “points”, once again, fall apart since your premise is bogus.

    You keep harping on that statement because you can’t legitimately refute my primary point—which is that you have no solid evidence that illegal aliens should be considered a serious health hazard—any more so than legal aliens or tourists. You can speculate, but there’s not enough data to prove anything. I can’t prove that they aren’t a health hazard for the same reason—there’s not enough data. It was a draw. Instead of calling it a draw as a rational debater would, you instead decided to fabricate something that was never there and attack that. That is what is childish and foolish here.

    Stop making love to the straw man and move out of the glass house.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 3:40 AM
    Comment #145846
    then why did you not say so much sooner?
    First of all, because that statement had little to no relevance to the ensuing discussion. You’re the one who decided to reframe it around that statement. Second, because tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, and I was concentrating on the truth that is there. The main truth being that you can’t disprove my statement.
    I’ll tell you why. Because it was not just kidding.
    Exactly. I’ll say it again… Tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up.

    Now we’ve spent half this thread taking about the meaning of one single comment, and you’re still claiming this is not semantic nit-picking?

    I would apologize to everyone else for the low signal-to-noise ratio but I’m sure they all “jumped thread” long ago.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 4:03 AM
    Comment #145868
    Charles Wager wrote: Bullshit …
    No need to get angry and resort to profanity. Perhaps you are angry with yourself? I would be if I waffled and flip-flopped as much as demonstrated by your statements.
    Charles Wager wrote: Bullshit. That is your opinion, which is totally false and unsubstantiated.
    Charles, I deal with facts. You deal with twisted facts, as evidenced by you very own statements… you first say it was “tongue-in-cheek” and proclaim others should be able to detect that it was “kidding”, but then you say it is not “tongue-in-cheek”.

    It’s very hard to keep up with all the flip-flopping and waffling.

    Have you considered running for congress? You have the skill set down pat.

    Charles Wager wrote: Again, you can dish it out but you can’t take it.
    Nonsense. There’s nothing for me to take, since I’m not the one waffling and trying to explain absurd statements and contradictions twenty different ways.

    You’re just mad because you got caught lying and waffling.
    Here’s a tip. If you want to win an argument, try to be right.
    If you wrong, as you are, try to admit it immediately.
    Then you can save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

    Charles Wager wrote: You are engaging in exactly the same “waffling” that you accuse me of. Your whole case is nothing but semantic rape and split hairs. You may not be a racist, but you are a hypocrite.

    You obviously are unaware of critique the message and not the messenger.
    So, you’re blantantly call me a hypocrite?
    Keep that up and they may recind your blogging rights.
    Resorting to name calling proves how weak and lame your arguments are.
    You are unable to debate without resorting to name calling. Classic.

    Charles Wager wrote:
    dan wrote: You clearly meant more than one or two.
    Actually yes, I did. I still do. So what?
    What? Yet, another flip-flop. That just proves my case completely. You can’t back up your weak arguments, so you resort to ambiguity, waffling, and semantics.
    Charles Wager wrote: Since your whole rampage was based on this one accusation, all your claims that I contradicted myself are thus bogus.
    Really? How revealing? Who’s rampaging and contradictory. Your statements have already, when juxtaposed, proven to be contradictory. You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. The deceptions and waffing of your statements are all too obvious. And, when caught red-handed, you claim it was merely “tongue-in-cheek”? That’s simply more waffling. Don’t get mad at me for your what the things you say and what they reveal.
    Charles Wager wrote:
    d.a.n wrote: It was not really tongue-in-cheek statement, since you subsequently tried to defend it.
    The only thing I ever defended as substantiated fact was that I never claimed that the statement was actually printed in the article.
    Do you realize how weak that is? The waffling is fascinating. But, then perhaps it depends on what the definition of “is” is ?

    Please continue. It is most fascinating and entertaining.
    The further your ship sinks, the harder you try to bail yourself out of the complex predicament you’ve backed yourself into.

    Charles Wager wrote: The fact that I made an attempt to clarify your gross misunderstanding of what I meant by it in no way implies that it was not tongue-in-cheek.
    With all the waffling, it is difficult for anyone to know what you mean. (1) First you make an absurd statement. (2) Then you try to defend it. (3) Then you try to characterize it as “tongue-in-cheek” only. (4) Then you try to characterize it as a “misconception”. (5) Then you get mad because someone noticed. (6) Then you back-peddle and start twisting everything.

    That’s simply hilarious and waffling unmatched by anyone.

    Charles Wager wrote: Everything else is your misconceptions piled on top of your self-delusions and distortions. All your other “points”, once again, fall apart since your premise is bogus.
    All my points are crystal clear, and obvious for all to see, and you know it, which is why you are so upset by it.
    Charles Wager wrote: You keep harping on that statement because you can’t legitimately refute my primary point—which is that you have no solid evidence that illegal aliens should be considered a serious health hazard—any more so than legal aliens or tourists.
    See….there you go twisting and distorting things again as El Capitan of Bizzaro land. I already said several times (you need to try to keep up) that if legal aliens are bringing disease, then it is logical to assume that illegal aliens are too. But, what is interesting, and reveals one of your many contradications, is that you previously said that “immigrants are catching the diseases from us.” So, which is it? Perhaps you can now understand why people may not understand what the hell you’re saying.
    Charles Wager wrote: You can speculate, but there’s not enough data to prove anything. I can’t prove that they aren’t a health hazard for the same reason—there’s not enough data. It was a draw.
    So, here is yet another contradiction. Now you say you can’t prove your point? Fascinating indeed.
    Charles Wager wrote: Instead of calling it a draw as a rational debater would, you instead decided to fabricate something that was never there and attack that.

    Why should one declare a draw unless their statements are wrong and contradictory as yours? Sorry … even though that’s what you want, it is not a draw, and no amount of waffling can make it so.

    The only fabrication taking place is the obvious waffling and contradictions of your own statements. And, as if that were not enough, you waffle again (below), as you know declare your “tongue-in-cheek” as

    That is what is childish and foolish here.
    Yes, you statements are just that.
    Charles Wager wrote: Stop making love to the straw man and move out of the glass house.
    You should take your own advice, since it is you that resorted to name calling. That’s the typical result when a person’s lame and weak arguments start to unravel. Classic.
    Charles Wager wrote:
    d.a.n then why did you not say so much sooner?
    First of all, because that statement had little to no relevance to the ensuing discussion.
    Of course you want to gloss over that, since it reveals more waffling.
    Charles Wager wrote: You’re the one who decided to reframe it around that statement. Second, because tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, and I was concentrating on the truth that is there. The main truth being that you can’t disprove my statement.
    Wrong. I already proved it, using your own link. So, is it tougue-in-cheek or the truth? No wonder anyone is confused.
    Charles Wager wrote: I’ll tell you why. Because it was not just kidding. Exactly. I’ll say it again… Tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony.
    OOOOoooohhhhh … . so, now is it not tougue-in-cheek ? Now, it is fact? Ha! You are, hilariously, all over the place and don’t even realize it. No wonder others are confused. That type of waffling and circular logic is hilarious. Please continue. I’m intrigued. Let’s see how many different ways you can twist the facts, cloud the issues, waffle, flip-flop, and make numerous contradictory statements.

    The hilarious part is that you will undoubtedly respond by saying there are no contradictions, even though your very own statements, placed side-by-side demonstrate exactly that. Please explain that. That should be very interesting.

    Charles Wager wrote: Look it up. Now we’ve spent half this thread taking about the meaning of one single comment, and you’re still claiming this is not semantic nit-picking?
    Not only are your statements inconsistent, contradictory, but false too, as proven by the statistics provided in the very article you inadvertently provided. Perhaps you should have thoroughly read it before using it to substantiate your statement:
    • Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the ones coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.
    Charles Wager wrote: I would apologize to everyone else for the low signal-to-noise ratio but I’m sure they all “jumped thread” long ago.
    Yes, You should apologize. But that’s unlikely.

    [Please stay tuned … more waffling and contradictons are certain to follow.]


    Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 10:23 AM
    Comment #145907

    has anyone noticed how little we depend on the Criminal Immigrants. now if they stay away a week, stores will see an increase in profits with the shoplifting down to a minimum and people with real money shopping once again.

    by the way it is now called sinko de mayo since the threat of arrest kept the crowds away. seems they are all criminal immingrants.

    no se puede! no se puede! sinko de mayo! stinko de mayo!

    Posted by: lm at May 6, 2006 3:04 PM
    Comment #145912
    Charles, I deal with facts.
    The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you don’t deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.
    You obviously are unaware of critique the message and not the messenger. So, you’re blantantly call me a hypocrite?
    Yes, I am. You’re backing up my assessment by suggesting that I’m the first one to violate the policy. You’re a hypocrite. Don’t get mad—it’s not personal. It’s simply true and fully substantiated by your own words over and over again. I’ve demonstrated how every thing you accuse me of can be turned around by the same twisted logic to apply to you. Yet you continue on and on, ad infinitum, with the same tired ploy… Maybe next time you can stay on this side of rationality and we can have a real debate?
    OOOOoooohhhhh … . so, now is it not tougue-in-cheek ? Now, it is fact?
    Something does not have to be false to be tongue-in-cheek. As I said, look it up. You really need to get a dictionary, my friend, if you want to be successful at this semantic rape ploy.
    Yes, You should apologize. But that’s unlikely.
    I apologize to the other readers for continuing to bait d.a.n. long after I realized the discussion was no longer productive. I apologize to the WatchBlog manager for giving in to d.a.n.’s name calling with my own.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 3:42 PM
    Comment #145919
    Charles wrote: The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you don’t deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.

    That’s a new one.
    First time someone said: You deal with “faction”.
    Very interesting indeed, since you (below) tell me to get a dictionary.
    Perhaps you should take your own advice?

    Charles, FYI … here’s the definition for faction:

    • faction (noun) A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group.

    As you keep repeating: “Look it up”

    d.a.n wrote: So, you [Charles Wager] blantantly call me a hypocrite?
    Charles Wager wrote: Yes, I am. You’re a hypocrite.

    Gee, Charles. You don’t know how much that hurts my feelings.
    Ha! Is that the best you can do?
    Hypocrite! Hypocrite! Hypocrite!

    Name calling is the obvious final stages of one who has been thoroughly trounced in a debate, and frustrated with the difficulty and inability to substantiate their own, weak, inconsistent, and ridiculous assertions, exacerbated by waffling and flip-flopping. Congratulations Charles. You just reached the final stage. Rather than stick to the facts, you resorted to name calling. Touché !

    Charles Wager wrote: Maybe next time you can stay on this side of rationality and we can have a real debate?
    Non-sequitur. I’ve been very rational all along. I’m not the one waffling, flip-flopping, and contradicting my self in every subsequent paragraph. Frustration with that is why you finally resort to name-calling.

    Your own statements reveal irrationality, evidenced by the resorting to name calling. All of the waffling, flip-flopping, contradictory statements, and a stubbornly foolish attempt to defend all of it to the very bitter end (unsuccessfully) is irrational. Name calling is so much easier than sticking to the facts. Changing the subject, clouding the issues, obscuring the facts, and blaming others is so much easier than sticking to the facts.

    Charles Wager wrote: Something does not have to be false to be tongue-in-cheek.
    More weak, lame waffling, since no one ever said that. That is yet another lame tactic to salvage a losing battle. Besides, I thought you already said it was not really tongue-in-cheek? You’ve got more flip-flops than a waffle house. It seems you have finally even thoroughly confused yourself. But, perhaps it depends on what the definition of “is” is? But, then, you don’t even know the difference between faction and fiction.
    Charles Wager wrote: As I said, look it up. You really need to get a dictionary, my friend, if you want to be successful at this semantic rape ploy.

    Charles, you need a dictionary, so that you know the difference between faction and fiction.

    You also need a mirror, so you’ll recognize all the qualities you hurl at others.

    But, if I ever need lessons in “semantic rape ploy”, I’ll contact you, since you are quite good at it, as you practice it at every turn, and then accuse others of it. You should consider a career in congress, among cheaters and crooks that are masters at it.

    Charles Wager wrote: I apologize to the other readers for continuing to bait d.a.n. long after I realized the discussion was no longer productive.
    Interesting. That is an admission of baiting? With name calling?
    Charles Wager wrote: I apologize to the WatchBlog manager for giving in to d.a.n.’s name calling with my own.
    I never called you names. I only addressed your statements. Remember, it is critique the message, not the messenger.

    Once again, here are the facts:

    Charles Wager wrote:
    So it appears the immigrants, the ones coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us.

    Charles Wager then wrote: It was a stretch (that was the tongue-in-cheek part). It was also an opinion, which is one of the first things I clarified about it once I realized you had no sense of humor.

    If anyone is confused … stay tuned … the waffling and contradictions get better …

    Charles Wager then wrote: Exactly. I’ll say it again … Tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up.

    Now, you are saying was not merely tongue-and-cheek? That’s not just waffling. That is flip-flopping of the worst kind. Which is it? Both? Neither? Or, does it vary bi-minutely?

    First, Charles Wager claimed it was merely tongue-and-cheek, but now he is flip-flopping again, and admitting that it is not merely tongue-and-cheek, and is again, as originally, trying to say that “does not mean the statement is false”, which I would interpret as an assertion that it is true if it is not false ? No? What we just witnessed was the flip, followed by the flop, and followed by another flip. Hence, the well deserved label: flip-flopper.

    So, let’s see if there is any way to even remotely understand any of the waffling and flip-flopping …

    Charles Wager first wrote:

    • (1) I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants. [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]

    • (2) Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us. [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]

    • (3) Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here. [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]

    • (4) Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease. [That is one of many flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that they are catching diseases from us . This is the beginning of the back peddling and contradictions; So which is it? ]

    • (5) Charles Wager wrote: It’s not surprising that foreigners—legal or otherwise are the bearers of disease. [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]

    • (6) Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem. [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]

    • (7) Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I’ll say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up. [No need to look it up. Nobody is arguing your new red-herring. This entire thread is littered with similar nonsensical inventions used to cloud the issues and distract from a your dismal failure to sustain a rational and factual debate and stick to the facts and issues at hand.]

    Your statements speak for themselves.
    They don’t need my help or analysis.
    The myriad of waffling, flip-flopping, and contradictory statements is amazing.

    And, then you became so frustrated with the inability to defend the absurdity of your own statemetns, that you finally resort to name calling. Classic.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 4:58 PM
    Comment #145926
    Very interesting indeed, since you (below) tell me to get a dictionary. Perhaps you should take your own advice?
    See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I’m coining a term. I used it when I first introduced the term “semantic rape”, a ploy which you continue to engage in. Now, when I used the quotes I didn’t realize it was a real word. However, after you decided to leap on it as a new target for your semantic rape, I went to dictionary.com and learned it actually is a real word, and it has exactly the same meaning that I was using it for:
    A literary work or film that is a mix of fact and fiction.
    Of course, the quotes are still appropriate since your posts hardly qualify as a literary work (maybe they could qualify as a “literary wreck”, however).
    Name calling is the obvious final stages of one who has been thoroughly trounced in a debate, and frustrated with the difficulty and inability to substantiate their own, weak, inconsistent, and ridiculous assertions, exacerbated by waffling and flip-flopping.
    Okay, let’s see… you said:
    Charles Wager (a.k.a. waffler) wrote:
    “Also Known As” waffler. Directed at me personally. As a noun. Not directed at the message, but at the person. You may have been skirting the WatchBlog policy before by saying “you are waffling”, but as soon as you directly called me a waffler you broke the policy. And before you come back with the pathetic excuse of “yes, but it’s true…”, I might also remind you that your hypocrisy is simply true and fully substantiated by your own words. Therefore “hypocrite” is a true and accurate term when used to describe you.
    Hypocrite! Hypocrite! Hypocrite!
    Nicely put. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I knew using that word would get your dander up. The truth’s a bitch, ain’t it?
    Your own statements reveal irrationality, evidenced by the resorting to name calling.
    You’re the one looking in a mirror, my friend…
    Interesting. That is an admission of baiting? With name calling?
    Yep. If baiting is against the policy, I’m not aware of it. I already admitted I was name calling. Are you capable of doing the same, or are you going to continue your hypocrisy?
    Now, you are saying was not merely tongue-and-cheek? That’s not just waffling. That is flip-flopping of the worst kind. Which is it? Both? Neither? Or, does it vary bi-minutely?
    Seriously. Look the word up. I never said it was “not merely” tongue-in-cheek, I just said it was tongue-in-cheek. No “not merely” is needed, because that fact that something is tongue-in-cheek in no way implies that there’s no truth to it. Please just look the word up-then give it up.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 5:47 PM
    Comment #145936

    Oh…you’re right.
    I forgot about that (a.k.a. waffler). I stand corrected. At least I can admit a mistake.

    However, it is very accurate, since all of your statements deal with waffling, flip-flopping, posturing, twisting, and back-peddling (that is, when El Capitan of Bizzaro is not DEMANDNIG answers to questions).

    Besides, before that, you stated that I was “anti-American”.
    That is very offensive.
    So, you initiated the offensiveness, and followed it up with more name calling.

    Sticks and stones, ya know.
    It simply reveals the weakness of your argument.
    Please continue with the name calling, if you wish.
    It simply proves that your case is weak.

    So, at least what I said is true.
    But, no one at WatchBlog can match (as demonstrated by your statements) the waffling, flip-flopping, back-peddling, twisting the facts, and gall of telling people to use a dictionary when you yourself use words that you do not even know the meaning of (and you even admitte it above … Ha Ha Ha Ha!).

    And it is mild indeed compared to the obvious frustration that drove you to such a hateful attack: “you are a hypocrite.”

    Charles Wager wrote: I went to dictionary.com and learned it [faction] actually is a real word.

    You did not know that “faction” is a real word? Ha Ha Ha Ha!

    So, the comical waffling and back-peddling continues as you try to recover from the use of words for which you do not even know the meaing. Ha Ha Ha Ha!

    The irony is that you are recommeding a dictionary to someone else, when you yourself are using words that you admit that you do not even know the meaning of. Hilarious. Ha Ha Ha Ha!

    It just gets better and better.

    You want to imagine that by calling people a hypocrite, that you are getting their “dander up”. Ha Ha Ha Ha! : )

    Hardly, your statement merely reveals qualities of yourself that you hurl at others.

    So, you’re still trying to waffle and back-peddle on the “tongue-in-cheek” thing?

    Please just try to explain the following (if that is possible) …

    • Charles Wager first wrote:(1) I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants. [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]
    • (2) Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us. [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]
    • (3) Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here. [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]
    • (4) Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease. [That is one of many flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that they are catching diseases from us . This is the beginning of the back peddling and contradictions; So which is it? ]
    • (5) Charles Wager wrote: It’s not surprising that foreigners—legal or otherwise are the bearers of disease. [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]
    • (6) Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem. [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]
    • (7) Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I’ll say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up. [Charles, perhaps you should look it up, since you are in the habit of using words that you do not even know the meaning of, as evidenced by your own admission above.]

    That speaks for itself.
    It is a tangled web of waffling, flip-flopping, and contradictory statements.
    It is enough to confuse anyone (even the author of it, obviously).

    You’re just mad because you got caught waffling and contradicting at every turn.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 7:16 PM
    Comment #146025

    d.a.n.,

    I forgot about that (a.k.a. waffler). I stand corrected. At least I can admit a mistake.
    You admit a mistake with one face, yet continue the hypocrisy with the other. You said:
    Name calling is the obvious final stages of one who has been thoroughly trounced in a debate, and frustrated with the difficulty and inability to substantiate their own, weak, inconsistent, and ridiculous assertions
    Since you admitted to name calling, I guess this applies to you, doesn’t it? Or are you going to deny that and continue the hypocrisy? You also said:
    I’ve been very rational all along. I’m not the one waffling, flip-flopping, and contradicting my self in every subsequent paragraph.
    Yet in the very next paragraph, you said:
    Your own statements reveal irrationality, evidenced by the resorting to name calling.
    So according to you, name calling is evidence of irrationality. You admitted to name calling, but also claim you are being rational, but also claim those who resort to name calling aren’t rational. Can you admit you are contradicting yourself, or are you going to continue the hypocrisy?
    Besides, before that, you stated that I was “anti-American”. That is very offensive. So, you initiated the offensiveness, and followed it up with more name calling.
    The only place where I blatantly called you anti-American was immediately after I prefaced it with a long paragraph that illustrated why it would not be fair of me draw that conclusion from your words. For your reference:
    Those are your words. They sounds very anti-American to me. They sounds very pro-illegal alien. It sounds very much like you think any given illegal alien could govern this country better than any American citizen.

    Or perhaps, just perhaps, the world is not so black and white (i.e, binary). Perhaps I should take your statement, look at the surrounding context, allow room for sarcasm and exaggeration, make a judgement as to how serious you were when you wrote it or whether it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, and then finally come to an educated guess as to what you really meant and respond to what I believe your intent was instead of the actual words you used…and do all this for the purposes of improving communication and furthering the discussion…

    Nah! Why should I, when you don’t bother extending me the same courtesy? Instead, I’ll just post your comment back ad-nausuem and proclaim that you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American.

    Because that preface is there, the “anti-American” statement that followed was an obvious parady to demonstrate why your previous post was so offensive to me.

    Prior to that statement you took my words out of context, and also attributed words to me I never said. That is very offensive, so you initiated the offensiveness. You continue the hypocrisy, trying to waffle out of the fact that you started the name calling by suggesting I offended you first. You do this by twisting something I said and again taking it out of context. Again. The very statement of mine you are quoting was an example of why it’s disingenuous to take something out of context. What I said in the preface is that your words sound anti-American when taken out of context. Which they do. Yet, based on many of your other comments, you are obviously not anti-American. So you see? This is why it’s disingenuous to take statements out of context and twist their meaning. Yet you are still doing so, therefore the hypocrisy continues…

    You also said:

    You did not know that “faction” is a real word? Ha Ha Ha Ha!
    Another example of your waffling, as you try to avoid admitting that I was using the word correctly. In addition, you also did not know it was a real word in the context I was using it, which is why you tried and failed to shove it in my face by posting the wrong definition. And the hypocrisy continues…
    The irony is that you are recommeding a dictionary to someone else, when you yourself are using words that you admit that you do not even know the meaning of.
    That is not irony—you need to look that word up too while you’re at it. Whether or not I knew “faction” was a real word is irrelevant, since I was coining it as my own word as evidenced by the quotes I put around it. I already explained this to you…do you need to look up the word “coin” as well? Oh, and before you post it…any definition of “coin” that states it is a piece of metal that is used as currency is the wrong definition.
    So, you’re still trying to waffle and back-peddle on the “tongue-in-cheek” thing?
    Please, for the love of God look the word up already. You were wrong about it, and refuse to admit it. You accuse me of waffling yet engage in it constantly yourself. Thus, the hypocrisy continue…
    You want to imagine that by calling people a hypocrite, that you are getting their “dander up”. Ha Ha Ha Ha! : )
    Your maniacal laughter betrays you—you’re dander is obviously up. ;-)
    And it is mild indeed compared to the obvious frustration that drove you to such a hateful attack: “you are a hypocrite.”
    If calling you a hypocrite is hateful, even though it is simply true and fully substantiated by your own words over and over again, then calling me a waffler is just as hateful. They are both descriptive words, and neither one is profane. Trying to claim that one word is more “mild” than another is just more waffling.

    So on and on, ad infinitum, the hypocrisy continues…

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 7, 2006 1:48 PM
    Comment #146100

    Charles Wager,

    What? More waffling?
    Did you used to work in a waffle house ? : )

    Your statement above waffled right over the part about you initiating the name-calling first (calling me anti-American).

    Then your waffled some more in your last post, as you try to explain why you used the word “faction”, when it is clear for all to see that you did not even know the word existed since you said above:

    Charles Wager wrote: “when I used the quotes I did not realize it was a real word.”

    But, what’s truly ridiculous and amazing (waffling at its best by a master waffler) is your statement trying to waffle out of it (guess you can’t help yourself) as you then say:

    Charles Wager wrote: See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I am coining a term.

    Ha ! Yeah right. Truly hilarious. You can’t help yourself. Is that more “tongue-in-cheek” or more “waffling”, since you obviously meant to say “fiction” (not “faction”), but the compulsion for waffling is so much stronger than the good sense to ever admit a mistake ?

    So, the term “waffling” is very accurate, as corroborated by the massive waffling above on every point of debate.

    Also, waffling is a form of lying and hypocrisy. Have you ever thought of running for office?. All those years workin’ in a waffle house might come in very handy.

    I find it facsinating how deep you keep diggin’ that hole you’re stuck in.

    Your new statements (above) about the word “faction” reveals more waffling.
    You already admitted to not knowing it was a real word.
    Why the heck would you then try to pretend you meant to use the word.

    It’s comical. Please continue. I find the non-stop waffling to be most entertaining. In fact, no one at WatchBlog has ever been as entertaining as you.

    If you could, please explain the following waffling (as the list grows longer and longer). Let’s see what additional waffling develops

    • (1)Charles Wager first wrote: I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants. [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]
    • (2) Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us . [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]
    • (3) Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here. [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]
    • (4) Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease. [That is one of many flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that they are catching diseases from us . This is the beginning of the back peddling and contradictions; So which is it? ]
    • (5) Charles Wager wrote: It’s not surprising that foreigners—legal or otherwise are the bearers of disease. [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]
    • (6) Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem. [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]
    • (7) Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I’ll say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up. [Charles, perhaps you should look it up, since you are in the habit of using words that you do not even know the meaning of, as evidenced by your own admission above.]
    • (8) Charles Wager wrote: The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you do not deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.
      Charles Wager then wrote: “when I used the quotes I did not realize it was a real word.”
      Charles Wager then wrote: I went to dictionary.com and learned it [faction] actually is a real word.
      Charles Wager then wrote: See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I’m coining a term.
      Charles Wager wrote: … you try to avoid admitting that I was using the word [“faction”] correctly.
      [Uhhhhmm … Excuse me Charles, but you already admitted (above) to not knowing that [“faction”] was a real word, and you clearly meant to use the word “fiction”, so why now try to act like you meant to use that word all along, and try to convince me that you used the word correctly? That’s really very funny. Why do you now act like you were so clever in the use of a word, when you didn’t even know what it meant? Did you already forget that you already said you did not know it was a real word? Why not admit from the start that it was a typo, and you meant to say “fiction” (not faction)? Why? Because the waffling is so deeply ingrained, that you can not help yourself. Thus, you embarked on yet another round of waffling to cover your ignorance of the meaning of the word “faction”. You’ve got more waffles that and waffle hut. That’s hilarious. This is very entertaining. Please continue.]

    [ stay tuned … more entertaining waffling is most certianly to follow … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 8, 2006 1:08 AM
    Comment #146111

    d.a.n.,

    Nice graphic. It’s good to see you’re spending your time productively. I see you’ve taken the name-calling to a whole new level, while ignoring the fact that you said:

    Name calling is the obvious final stages of one who has been thoroughly trounced in a debate, and frustrated with the difficulty and inability to substantiate their own, weak, inconsistent, and ridiculous assertions
    Putting together silly graphics is a whole new level of childishness. I have to say I’m amused with how far you can regress. You’re now just a step away from calling me a “pooh-pooh head” or some similarly creative insult. Oh, better yet—why don’t you draw up a cute little graphic of Charles Wager with “pooh-pooh” on his head! That would be so totally endearing! [I bet d.a.n. actually does it too!]

    Your statement above waffled right over the part about you initiating the name-calling first (calling me anti-American).
    The name-calling started when you first accused me of waffling. Plain and simple. That’s when you first offended me. That is the point when this discussion went downhill quickly. If you truly thought I believed you are anti-American, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. However, one would have to have far below average intelligence not to see that my post was a parody of your previous post. Regardless of what I might think of you, you seem to have average intelligence—I was willing to at least give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Was I wrong to do so? If you’re completely stupid please let me know, and I can make a point to label things much more simplistically for you in the future. [perhaps I can attach a cute little childish graphic of a road sign that says “WARNING: PARODY AHEAD”]
    You can’t help yourself. Is that more “tongue-in-cheek” or more “waffling”, since you obviously meant to say “fiction” (not “faction”)
    To all rational and intelligent people, it is obvious that I didn’t mean to use the word “fiction”, because if that had been my intent I would not have put the word in quotes. As usual, since your premise is bogus, your accusation is bogus. Furthermore, you are playing stupid again by saying it was obvious I meant to say “fiction”. However, you obviously believed I meant to say “faction”, otherwise you would not have posted the totally wrong definition for the word “faction”. It’s a transparent and feeble attempt to save face after screwing up so badly, and it makes you look totally foolish and desperate to even try it.

    And still your hypocrisy know no bounds…

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 2:52 AM
    Comment #146113

    i think bush is right and we should send these non-english speaking flag burners back to their own country. all they do is collect welfare and try and start trouble, and i don’t want any trouble. i don’t want illegals in this country, in my town, in my suburb. send em back or arrest them now.

    Posted by: mike at May 8, 2006 3:26 AM
    Comment #146124

    i think that wager dude got bested about 35 posts ago,

    Posted by: FA STEPHENS at May 8, 2006 4:14 AM
    Comment #146125

    Charles Wager (wafflemeister),

    Thanks. Glad you like the picture.
    It is quite appropriate, don’t ya think?
    No? Where’s your sense of humor?
    Did you lose it at the waffle hut?

    If you don’t like your statements being characterized as waffling, then … uhhhmmmm … then perhaps less waffling would help? Duh !

    Charles Wager wrote: The name-calling started when you first accused me of waffling. Plain and simple. That is when you first offended me.
    You were offended? Hmmmm. Interesting. I guess it must be true? Eh?

    So you want to talk about name callin’ ?
    Even though you started it by calling me “anti American”?
    You then tried to waffle out of that too by saying it was a “parody”.
    Hmmmmm … so everything is either “a parody” or “coining a term” or “tongue-in-cheek” or “just kidding” or something … blah, blah, blah ?

    Nope. It’s none of that. It’s just plain old compulsive waffling.
    Then you proceeded to call people hypocrites.
    Then you call them stupid.
    Then you call them childish.
    Then you’re upset because someone noticed waffling on every point of debate?
    And then you were offended by someone saying you were waffling?
    You’re kidding. Right? Get over it cry baby.

    Your just mad because someone pegged your statements for what they were (waffling).
    If not, then please explain the following statements exemplifying waffling:

    • (1)Charles Wager first wrote: I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants.
      [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]

    • (2) Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us .
      [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]

    • (3) Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here.
      [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]

    • (4) Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease.
      [That is one of many flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that they are catching diseases from us . This is the beginning of the back peddling and contradictions; So which is it? ]

    • (5) Charles Wager wrote: It is not surprising that foreigners, legal or otherwise, are the bearers of disease.
      [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]

    • (6) Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem.
      [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]

    • (7) Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I will say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up.
      [Charles, perhaps you should look it up, since you are in the habit of using words that you do not even know the meaning of, as evidenced by your own admission above.]

    • (8) Charles Wager wrote:
      The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you do not deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.
      Charles Wager then wrote:
      “when I used the quotes I did not realize it [“faction”] was a real word.”

      Charles Wager then wrote:
      I went to dictionary.com and learned it [faction] actually is a real word.

      Charles Wager then wrote:
      See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I am coining a term.

      Charles Wager wrote:
      … you try to avoid admitting that I was using the word [“faction”] correctly.

      Charles Wager wrote::
      To all rational and intelligent people, it is obvious that I didn’t mean to use the word “fiction”, because if that had been my intent I would not have put the word in quotes.

      [Uhhhhmm … Excuse me Charles, but you already admitted (above) to not knowing that [“faction”] was a real word, and you clearly meant to use the word “fiction”, so why now try to act like you meant to use that word all along, and try to convince me that you used the word correctly? That’s really very funny. Why do you now act like you were so clever in the use of a word, when you didn’t even know what it meant? Did you already forget that you already said you did not know it was a real word? Why not admit from the start that it was a typo, and you meant to say “fiction” (not faction)? Why? Because the waffling is so deeply ingrained, that you can not help yourself. Thus, you embarked on yet another round of waffling to cover your ignorance of the meaning of the word “faction”. You’ve got more waffles than and waffle hut. That’s hilarious. This is very entertaining. Please continue.]

    • (9) Charles Wager wrote:I see you’ve taken the name-calling to a whole new level.
      Charles Wager then writes:… If you are completely stupid please let me know …
      Charles Wager wrote: And still your hypocrisy know no bounds …
      [Interesting … who is doing all the name calling ?]

    Very funny. Please keep going. The waffle list just gets longer and longer.
    You, obviously, must be having fun too since you keep returning for more.

    P.S. I’m an artist. If you’d really want it, I can easily whip up a picture of pooh-pooh on your head in just a few minutes. Just post a photo of yourself and I’ll see what I can do with it.

    [ stay tuned … more compulsive waffling is most certianly to follow … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 8, 2006 4:58 AM
    Comment #146235
    Thanks. Glad you like the picture.
    Yes, keep them coming. They make me look like I’m arguing with an infant, but I guess there aren’t any laws against that.
    If you don’t like your statements being characterized as waffling, then … uhhhmmmm … then perhaps less waffling would help?
    As would less hypocrisy…
    You were offended? Hmmmm. Interesting. I guess it must be true? Eh?
    Therefore, since you said:
    Besides, before that, you stated that I was “anti-American”. That is very offensive.
    I guess it must be true? Are you saying you really are anti-American? It must be true, right? Because the only other conclusion is that you have no grasp of logic.
    Then you proceeded to call people hypocrites.
    Not people. Just you. Because it is simply true and fully substantiated by your own words over and over again. Does it offend you? That just demonstrates that it is true, doesn’t it? It also demonstrates that there is no end to the ways you show you’re hypocrisy…
    Then you call them stupid.
    I didn’t call you stupid. I asked you to tell me if that’s your assessment, because there is no other excuse for playing this “d.a.n. is a moron” game you’ve been playing. Is that your assessment d.a.n.? Do you really think you’re stupid?
    Then you call them childish.
    Because it’s simply true and fully substantiated by your own words (and graphics) over and over again. Does that offend you? Use your twisted logic again to draw a conclusion about what that means. I also called you cute and endearing…are you going to take offense at everything?
    Then you’re upset because someone noticed waffling on every point of debate?
    No, actually the offensive part was using words I never said and taking my own words out of context as a pathetic ploy to then be able to go on and accuse me of “waffling”, followed by childish jabs and a hail of hypocrisy as you proceed to waffle out of your own contradictions and name-calling.
    P.S. I’m an artist.
    You need to rethink your career. Seriously. Any eight year old with PhotoShop could put that graphic together (especially with JibJab’s help).
    Excuse me Charles, but you already admitted (above) to not knowing that [“faction”] was a real word, and you clearly meant to use the word “fiction”
    I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word. You’re accusation that I intended to use the word “fiction” is pure fiction (notice the lack of quotes there, are you starting to get it yet?) Give this feeble ploy a rest before you hurt yourself—you do know what the definition of insanity is, don’t you?

    The blood from the wounds you inflicted on yourself with the many daggers of your own hypocrisy is staining this great land of America. But then again, by your own logic if it offends you it must be true…so you admit you’re anti-American. That’s a shame.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 2:03 PM
    Comment #146281

    Charles Wager,
    Still can’t let the “faction” thing go?
    Now you just flip-flopped yet another time.
    Now you just said:

    I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.

    So, now you are finally admitting that you didn’t know it was a word. Ha!

    You’re crackin’ me up with all your flip-flops …

    • (1)Charles Wager first wrote: I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants.
      [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]

    • (2) Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us .
      [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]

    • (3) Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here.
      [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]

    • (4) Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease.
      [That is one of many flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that they are catching diseases from us . This is the beginning of the back peddling and contradictions; So which is it? ]

    • (5) Charles Wager wrote: It is not surprising that foreigners, legal or otherwise, are the bearers of disease.
      [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]

    • (6) Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem.
      [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]

    • (7) Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I will say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up.
      [Charles, perhaps you should look it up, since you are in the habit of using words that you do not even know the meaning of, as evidenced by your own admission above.]

    • (8) Charles Wager wrote:
      The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you do not deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.
      Charles Wager then wrote:
      “when I used the quotes I did not realize it [“faction”] was a real word.”

      Charles Wager then wrote:
      I went to dictionary.com and learned it [faction] actually is a real word.

      Charles Wager then wrote:
      See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I am coining a term.

      Charles Wager then wrote:
      I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.

      Charles Wager wrote:
      … you try to avoid admitting that I was using the word [“faction”] correctly.

      Charles Wager wrote::
      To all rational and intelligent people, it is obvious that I did not mean to use the word “fiction”, because if that had been my intent I would not have put the word in quotes.

      [Uhhhhmm … you got more flip-flops than a waffle house. Every post is a new flip-flog. You already admitted (above) to not knowing that [“faction”] was a real word, then you said you meant to use the word, but you clearly meant to use the word “fiction”, so why now try to act like you meant to use that word all along, and try to convince me that you used the word correctly? That’s really very funny. Why do you now act like you were so clever in the use of a word, when you didn’t even know what it meant? Did you already forget that you already said you did not know it was a real word? Why not admit from the start that it was a typo, and you meant to say “fiction” (not faction)? Why? Because the waffling is so deeply ingrained, that you can not help yourself. Thus, you embarked on yet another round of waffling to cover your ignorance of the meaning of the word “faction”. You’ve got more waffles than and waffle hut. That’s hilarious. This is very entertaining. Please continue.]

    • (9) Charles Wager wrote:I see you have taken the name-calling to a whole new level.
      Charles Wager then writes:… If you are completely stupid please let me know …
      Charles Wager wrote: And still your hypocrisy know no bounds …
      [Interesting … who is doing all the name calling ?]

    • (10) Charles Wager wrote:I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.
      [Wow…yet another flip-flop. First it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. Then it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. And now you finally admit that you did not know “faction” was a real word as I orignally suspected. Talk about shootin’ yourself in the foot ! ?]

    Hilarious. Please continue … I am curious to see now long your waffle list will grow. We’re up to (10) now and I even let a few waffles go by.

    Charles Wager wrote: You need to rethink your [artist] career.

    Really? You think you can do better than this? I seriously doubt it. But, I’m sure you can make a great waffles. After all, you have your own Waffle Hut. : )

    [Please stay tuned … free waffles at Charles’ Waffle Hut … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 8, 2006 4:12 PM
    Comment #146293

    Come to think of it, d.a.n., you got quite offended when others accused you of being a racist. Applying your twisted logic once again… since you were offended that means the accusation must be true, therefore by your own admission you are a racist. This logic of yours is great—it works in any situation! I can say whatever I want about someone and then apply your special, elite brand of logic to prove it’s true beyond a shadow of a doubt! Have you considered patenting that?

    Putting the whole toolkit together you have an unbeatable debating machine! Let me recap, to make sure I’ve mastered all the nuances:

    1. Accuse your opponent of anything under the sun.

    2. Apply the elite D.A.N. brand of logic to “prove” the accusation is true.

    3. When your opponent makes any attempt to explain that the D.A.N. brand of logic is a fraud, hit them with the all-purpose “waffle” stick [thrown in free, for a limited time only].

    4. Finally, when your opponent tries to take advantage of the remaining rough edges and imperfections in your otherwise well-built facade, buff them out with a liberal application of D.A.N. Hipocrisy Help-All.

    Quite a one-two-three punch you have there! Really, you should patent that. Maybe you can work it so that you can use your stolen waffle hut graphic on the front of the package…at least when marketing the children’s version.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 4:50 PM
    Comment #146304

    Charles Wager wrote:
    … you are a racist.

    So, you like to call people names?
    You call people childish.
    And stupid.
    And hypocrites.
    And anti-American.
    And, now you call people racist.

    Any thing else?

    Sticks and stones, ya know.

    Please continue. Let’s see how deep you can dig that hole your in.

    You’re just mad because you got caught red-nanded waffling all over the place, as demonstrated by your statements below …

    Charles, you should patent it as the “Charles Wager Waffle Plan”.
    You may not have invented waffling, but no one does it better.

    P.S. Did you notice the comments above.
    You got bested a long time ago.

    But, please continue with the circular waffling.

    And, if you get time, please try to explain the following:

    • (1)Charles Wager first wrote: I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants. [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]
    • (2) Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us . [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]
    • (3) Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here. [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]
    • (4) Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease. [That is one of many flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that they are catching diseases from us . This is the beginning of the back peddling and contradictions; So which is it? ]
    • (5) Charles Wager wrote: It is not surprising that foreigners, legal or otherwise, are the bearers of disease. [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]
    • (6) Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem. [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]
    • (7) Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I will say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up. [Charles, perhaps you should look it up, since you are in the habit of using words that you do not even know the meaning of, as evidenced by your own admission above.]
    • (8) Charles Wager wrote: The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you do not deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.
      Charles Wager then wrote: “when I used the quotes I did not realize it [“faction”] was a real word.”
      Charles Wager then wrote: I went to dictionary.com and learned it [faction] actually is a real word.
      Charles Wager then wrote: See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I am coining a term.
      Charles Wager then wrote: I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.
      Charles Wager wrote: … you try to avoid admitting that I was using the word [“faction”] correctly.
      Charles Wager wrote:: To all rational and intelligent people, it is obvious that I did not mean to use the word “fiction”, because if that had been my intent I would not have put the word in quotes.
      [Uhhhhmm … you got more flip-flops than a waffle house. Every post is a new flip-flog. You already admitted (above) to not knowing that [“faction”] was a real word, then you said you meant to use the word, but you clearly meant to use the word “fiction”, so why now try to act like you meant to use that word all along, and try to convince me that you used the word correctly? That’s really very funny. Why do you now act like you were so clever in the use of a word, when you didn’t even know what it meant? Did you already forget that you already said you did not know it was a real word? Why not admit from the start that it was a typo, and you meant to say “fiction” (not faction)? Why? Because the waffling is so deeply ingrained, that you can not help yourself. Thus, you embarked on yet another round of waffling to cover your ignorance of the meaning of the word “faction”. You’ve got more waffles than and waffle hut. That’s hilarious. This is very entertaining. Please continue.]
    • (9) Charles Wager wrote:I see you have taken the name-calling to a whole new level. Charles Wager then writes:… If you are completely stupid please let me know … Charles Wager wrote: And still your hypocrisy know no bounds … [Interesting … who is doing all the name calling ?]
    • (10) Charles Wager wrote:I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word. [Wow…yet another flip-flop. First it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. Then it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. And now you finally admit that you did not know “faction” was a real word as I orignally suspected. Talk about shootin’ yourself in the foot ! ?]
    • (11) Charles Wager wrote: … since you were offended, that means the accusation must be true, therefore by your own admission you are a racist. [So Charles now calls people racists too ]

    Hilarious. Please continue with the name calling … I am curious to see now long your waffle list will grow. We’re up to (11) now.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 8, 2006 5:14 PM
    Comment #146305
    So, now you are finally admitting that you didn’t know it was a word.
    Nope—I never denied it. You’re not seeing clearly—I think you managed to smear some D.A.N. logic on your own glasses while you were flinging it around. It’s pretty dense stuff, isn’t it? By the way, you did look up the definition of insanity, didn’t you?
    Really? You think you can do better than this? I seriously doubt it.
    Did I offend you when I poked fun at your cute little kiddy-drawing? Let’s apply D.A.N. logic here once again…. Since you were offended, it follows by your own admission you’re not a very good artist.
    Charles Wager wrote: And still your hypocrisy know no bounds … [Interesting … who is doing all the name calling ?]
    We’re both name calling at this point. However, name calling does not make one a hypocrite. It makes one a hypocrite to engage in name calling while simultaneously spouting off with this sort of postering:
    Name calling is the obvious final stages of one who has been thoroughly trounced in a debate, and frustrated with the difficulty and inability to substantiate their own, weak, inconsistent, and ridiculous assertions
    Those are your words, not mine.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 5:16 PM
    Comment #146307

    d.a.n. wrote:

    Charles Wager wrote:
    … you are a racist.
    But what Charles Wager actually wrote was:
    Applying your twisted logic once again… since you were offended that means the accusation must be true, therefore by your own admission you are a racist.
    See anything disingenuous here? In d.a.n.’s version Charles Wager is calling d.a.n. a racist. In the original Charles Wager version d.a.n. is calling himself a racist.

    I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute…however it is also a lie. That’s pure, undistilled D.A.N. logic for you—topped off by a dollop of D.A.N.’s Hipocrisy Help-All.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 5:28 PM
    Comment #146309

    Charles Wager wrote:
    … you are a racist.

    And Charles calls people childish.
    And stupid.
    And hypocrites.
    And anti-American.
    And, now he calls me racist.

    Charles Wager then wrote:
    We are both name calling at this point.

    Charles, when it comes to name calling, you are the best, as demonstrated by all of your posts above.

    It simply demonstrates how weak your arguments are.

    My use of the word “waffling” is nothing compared to all of your name calling.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 8, 2006 5:30 PM
    Comment #146387

    dan, don’t waste your time with this charles wager dude. You can not fix stupid.

    Posted by: Russ M at May 8, 2006 9:51 PM
    Comment #146424

    d.a.n.,

    Don’t worry, you’ve matched me name for name. I haven’t called you a single name that is not simply true and fully substantiated, over and over again, by your own words. You forget that I only called you one or two names…the rest were lies you constructed by twisting my words into whatever shape would fit whatever fictitous accusation you were leveling at the time.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 2:04 AM
    Comment #146430

    Quite interesting and coincidental… Two trolls, almost a day apart, both cheerleading for d.a.n. in hit-and-run posts, and both referring to me as “wager dude” in lowercase. Hey d.a.n., do you keep trolls in your pocket?

    And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 3:18 AM
    Comment #146485
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: That is what is childish and foolish here. Stop making love to the straw man and move out of the glass house.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM: … you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: … but you are a hypocrite.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: … application of D.A.N. Hipocrisy
    Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: If you’re completely stupid please let me know
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 04:58 PM: I apologize to the other readers for continuing to bait d.a.n.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: I’m arguing with an infant.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: since you were offended that means the accusation must be true, therefore by your own admission you are a racist.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute…however it is also a lie.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM: … you’ve matched me name for name.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM: And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:16 PM: … you’re not a very good artist.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM: Quite interesting and coincidental… Two trolls, almost a day apart, both cheerleading for d.a.n. in hit-and-run posts, and both referring to me as “wager dude” in lowercase. Hey d.a.n., do you keep trolls in your pocket? And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?


    So, Charles Wager calls people:

    • (1) childish,

    • (2) foolish,

    • (3) hypocrites,

    • (4) stupid,

    • (5) infants,

    • (6) racists,

    • (7) liars,

    • (8) not a very good artist,

    • (9) and now trolls

    … and then you say: Charles Wager wrote: “you’ve matched me name for name” ?

    What kind of logic is that ?
    The only name I ever used was “waffling”.
    It certainly must have hit a nerve to trigger such an onslaught of name-calling.

    Perhaps that is why other posters (who you call trolls) say what they say:

    Posted by FA STEPHENS at May 8, 2006 04:14 AM: i think that wager dude got bested about 35 posts ago
    Posted by Russ M at May 8, 2006 09:51 PM: dan, don’t waste your time with this charles wager dude. You can not fix stupid.

    FA STEPHENS, Russ M,
    Thanks!
    Did you see what Charles Wager called you?
    Charles Wager says you are a troll?

    The truth hurts, which is why Charles Wager resorts to so much name calling … not just me, but others, that he calls trolls. So, anyone that agrees with me is a troll ?

    Please continue Charles.
    This is like a class in psychology.
    The continuous onslaught of name-calling is fascinating.

    What’s next?

    Show us how deep you can dig that hole you’re in.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2006 11:48 AM
    Comment #146488
    Russ M wrote: dan, don’t waste your time with this charles wager dude. You can not fix stupid.

    I know. Perhaps I should have pity, but I’m curious to see how deep the hole will go.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2006 11:51 AM
    Comment #146534

    ive noticed that wager fella, in quite a lot of posts, when he agrees with his fellow posters , he comes back with a high five and a hand slap, then that’s not good enough he finishes the post with some more verbage slamming the openent even more. when he disagrees with your post, he trys to dissect it apart and often uses names and words like KKK ,trool, nazi, racist, also he will twist words around and reconstruct your statements to his own liking,to me that’s not a true debate,it is more like phscological warfare. that’s just my opinion of course. and from mr wagers mouth, a 78 year trool at that!

    Posted by: FA STEPHENS at May 9, 2006 1:50 PM
    Comment #146554

    FA STEPHENS,

    I see what you mean. I was curious about that and noticed the same sort of thing in other threads. Now we are called trolls? Hilarious.

    Ofcourse, Russ M (above) was correct … it is a waste of time, but curiosity got the best of me as it evolved into a psychological experiment … to see how far the wafflin’ would go.

    No doubt we will be accosted again after this with more name-calling.

    [ … please stay tuned … as the waffle hole gets deeper and deeper … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2006 2:56 PM
    Comment #146555
    … and then you say: Charles Wager wrote: “you’ve matched me name for name” ?

    What kind of logic is that ?
    The only name I ever used was “waffling”.

    You ask what kind of logic that is? I’ve been trying to tell you—it’s D.A.N. brand logic! Because when you apply the same standards to my posts that you apply to your own, I’ve only called you one name—hypocrite. And that was after you called me a waffler. The rest of the so-called names you love to cut and paste are lies and distortions, and taking things way out of context. I could do the same thing to your posts, which I’ve done up to this point only as a means of illustrating your hypocrisy. However, in spite of how low this discussion has sunk I’m still not willing to join you in unmitigated hypocrisy.
    It certainly must have hit a nerve to trigger such an onslaught of name-calling.
    True, which is why I’m amazed you started us down that path. Especially since, according to your own words:
    Name calling is the obvious final stages of one who has been thoroughly trounced in a debate, and frustrated with the difficulty and inability to substantiate their own, weak, inconsistent, and ridiculous assertions, exacerbated by waffling and flip-flopping.
    Is that truly the way you feel about yourself? Those are your words.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 2:57 PM
    Comment #146567

    d.a.n.,

    So you are FA STEPHENS! I didn’t think you’d be so blatant as to risk posting under the same troll name twice! Are you hijacking the handle of the known troll, or have you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I don’t recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once, and certainly not one post right after the other. Not only that, he is so supportive of you, d.a.n., that he has written his longest post in known WatchBlog history—all to back you up with empty platitudes! Congratulations, you’ve discovered a whole new level that I’m unwilling to sink to—pretending to be more than one poster, specifically to back up your own hypocrisy.

    Don’t worry, you can engage in verbal masturbation with yourself all day long, under as many different aliases as you want, and I won’t be joining you in that orgy of hypocrisy.

    I’ve tended to skim over your posts on other threads, because they are almost always highly repetitive and extremely long. At least that’s another thing I’ve learned by engaging in this cat fight—that I can continue to skip your posts in the future without worrying about missing anything.

    I’ve been viewing this discussion as one big skinner box, and you, d.a.n., have made quite a fascinating subject.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 3:43 PM
    Comment #146578

    Charles Wager,

    FA STEPHENS,
    Check it out. Charles Wager thinks I am posing as you. :O LOL!

    Charles Wager wrote: d.a.n., So you are FA STEPHENS! I didn’t think you’d be so blatant as to risk posting under the same troll name twice! Are you hijacking the handle of the known troll, or have you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I don’t recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once, and certainly not one post right after the other.

    Charles, You are wrong about that.
    FA STEPHENS has been posting at WatchBlog for quite some time.
    He has an E-Mail address, and it is not mine.
    FA STEPHENS is 78 years old.
    I’m 48.
    Ask the WatchBlog manager.
    He will verify the E-Mail addresses and IP addresses for you.

    You want so, so very much to believe they are shills, because you don’t want to believe that you’ve been so busted.

    Like I said, you’re diggin’ that hole your in even deeper and deeper, and accusing FA STEPHENS as being me, is just another nail in your coffin.

    Like I said, send an E-Mail to the WatchBlog Editor.
    He will confirm that FA STEPHENS and d.a.n are not the same person.

    Once again, I’m sorry to have to correct over and over, but if you look at the chronology below, you will see that you called me “anti-American” first on May 5th.

    It was not until the next day (May 6th) that I merely wrote: Charles Wager (a.k.a. waffler).

    How about them apples?

    Let’s see you try to waffle over that one too?

    Perhaps it is a stretch to expect better from one who does not even know the meaning of the word “faction”, and has the gall to tell others to use a dictionary. Ha! : )

    Perhaps it is a stretch to expect better from one who starts the name-calling, and has the gall to accuse others of name-calling and starting it too.

    Perhaps it is a stretch to expect better from one who starts the name-calling, and then goes on and on saying … you started it … no you started it … no I didn’t … you started it.

    What a laugh.

    The chronology below ought to put that to rest.

    So, would you now like to try and waffle out of that too?

    This should be most interesting:

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2006 12:09 AM: Now you’re waffling.
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 02:00 AM: … to waffle out of it will be interesting.
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 02:00 AM: undoubtedly, more waffling to follow
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:37 AM: More waffling and contradictions (as predicted).
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 08:38 PM” If you don’t answer these questions, without waffling, then I’m done with you.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM: you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American.
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:58 PM: … and then much waffling
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:58 PM: To back-peddle and now characterize it as something else is waffling.
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:58 PM: general, then that is waffling
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 01:05 AM: Why am I accused of waffling
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 01:57 AM: Charles Wager (a.k.a. waffler) wrote: d.a.n., Nice waffling yourself there.

    Then, after all that, Charles Wager called me and other people one or more of the following names:

    • (1) anti-American,

    • (2) pro-illegal alien

    • (3) childish,

    • (4) foolish,

    • (5) hypocrites,

    • (6) stupid,

    • (7) infants,

    • (8) racists,

    • (9) liars,

    • (10) not a very good artist,

    • (11) and now trolls

    Notice above, how Charles Wager attacks others, and calls them “trolls”.

    So, Charles, you keep repeating what I wrote above…thank you for that. Let me do it for you …

    Name calling is the obvious final stages of one who has been thoroughly trounced in a debate, and frustrated with the difficulty and inability to substantiate their own, weak, inconsistent, and ridiculous assertions, exacerbated by waffling and flip-flopping.

    What part of that statement do you not understand ?

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: That is what is childish and foolish here. Stop making love to the straw man and move out of the glass house.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM: … you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: … but you are a hypocrite.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: … application of D.A.N. Hipocrisy
    Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: If you’re completely stupid please let me know
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 04:58 PM: I apologize to the other readers for continuing to bait d.a.n.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: I’m arguing with an infant.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: since you were offended that means the accusation must be true, therefore by your own admission you are a racist.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM: … you’ve matched me name for name.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM: And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:16 PM: … you’re not a very good artist.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM: Quite interesting and coincidental … Two trolls, almost a day apart, both cheerleading for d.a.n. in hit-and-run posts, and both referring to me as “wager dude” in lowercase. Hey d.a.n., do you keep trolls in your pocket? And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?
    Charles Wager wrote: d.a.n., So you are FA STEPHENS! I didn’t think you’d be so blatant as to risk posting under the same troll name twice! Are you hijacking the handle of the known troll, or have you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I don’t recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once, and certainly not one post right after the other.


    [ … Busted again! … please stay tuned for waffling and find out the truth about who the real FA STEPHENS really is … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2006 4:07 PM
    Comment #146582

    So every one is a troll?
    Gettin’ paranoid ain’t ya?
    Please continue.
    This is truly hilarious.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2006 4:11 PM
    Comment #146612
    Ask the WatchBlog manager. He will verify the E-Mail addresses and IP addresses for you.
    What, ask the same WatchBlog manager that is carefully monitoring whether the WatchBlog policy is being followed on this thread? You continue with your “d.a.n. is dumb” act, but you know full well that this is an anonymous blog. Anyone can type in any name or email address they want, and as much as they claim the contrary it’s not technically possible for the WatchBlog managers to ban someone from posting on this site (all they can do is force someone to use a different name or change their IP address).

    The fact that you’re pretending you don’t know this is just the nail in the coffin of evidence that proves to me you’ve been posting as a troll, in a childish attempt to distract from your hypocrisy.

    But I’ll play along…why don’t you get my phone number from the WatchBlog manager (tell him I said you could have it). Give that phone number to FA STEPHENS, since he’s such a good bud of yours, and the three of us can set up a conference call to hash all this out. Sound good?

    I’ll be waiting for that call.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 6:34 PM
    Comment #146626
    Charles Wager wrote: What, ask the same WatchBlog manager that is carefully monitoring whether the WatchBlog policy is being followed on this thread? You continue with your “d.a.n. is dumb” act, but you know full well that this is an anonymous blog. Anyone can type in any name or email address they want, and as much as they claim the contrary it’s not technically possible for the WatchBlog managers to ban someone from posting on this site (all they can do is force someone to use a different name or change their IP address).

    Charles Wager,
    You got quite a case of paranoia don’t you?

    My IP Address is: 24.0.211.6 (determined via http://whatismyip.com),
    and my E-Mail address is d.a.n@comcast.net

    No one’s help is needed to make you look like a fool.
    You are doing a very good job of it all by without any one’s help.

    The Watchblog Manager can see the source of IP address and can verify the E-Mail address of the poster.

    You prefer to believe your own lies that I am posing as FA STEPHENS.
    You are very wrong.
    Your paranoia is interesting.
    This just gets better and better.
    The mentally handi-capped sign in front of your waffle hut was quite appropriate after all.
    You might want to have that condition looked at. Seriously.

    Charles Wager wrote: The fact that you’re pretending you don’t know this is just the nail in the coffin of evidence that proves to me you’ve been posting as a troll,
    Wrong. To say that is an outright lie. But, what’s new. No one’s help is needed to make you look like a fool. You are doing a very good job of it without anyone’s help.

    You were mad before, but now you are even more mad because other people see you for what you really are, too.

    You can’t stand it.
    You want so badly to believe FA STEPHENS is a troll.
    You want so badly to believe anyone who disagrees with you is a troll or imposter.
    You now imagine that I am posing as FA STEPHENS.
    Why do you refuse to see the truth?

    Charles Wager wrote: … in a childish attempt to distract from your hypocrisy.

    Wrong. Distraction is not needed.
    No one’s help is needed to make you look like a fool.
    You are doing a very good job of it all your self.
    Your behavoir clearly speaks for itself, more than anything else.
    You can’t accept the fact that others have also seen you for what you really are.

    Now, in a fit of delusional paranoia, you accuse me of being FA STEPHENS.
    That is a lie, but in the mind of a paraniod, everything is a conspiracy. I’d hate to guess what your relationships with other people must be like.

    Charles Wager wrote: But I’ll play along … why don’t you get my phone number from the WatchBlog manager (tell him I said you could have it). Give that phone number to FA STEPHENS, since he’s such a good bud of yours, and the three of us can set up a conference call to hash all this out. Sound good?

    Charles Wager,
    I do not know FA STEPHENS. You are imagining conspiracies that don’t exist. In the beginning, I thought this whole thing was a good laugh, but it is now appearing as though you are really and truly are a delusional paranoid ?

    Seriously, all kidding aside, you might consider seeing a psychiatrist about that delusional paranoia.

    FA STEPHENS is not me. All I know about him is what he said above, that he is 78 years old. The WatchBlog Manager is not going to give me FA STEPHENS’ E-Mail address to you or me, but he can tell you FA STEPHENS and d.a.n are two different people, if you have a legitimate complaint of some kind. Just allege to the WatchBlog Manager that you think d.a.n and FA STEPHENS are the same person. He will probably then also suggest you see a psychiatrist about that delusional paranoia, before you start seeing trolls around every corner.

    Or, hopefully, FA STEPHENS will return to provide proof himself?

    Charles Wager wrote: I’ll be waiting for that call.

    Really? Try holding your breath while you wait.

    [ … stay tuned … more waffling and delusional paranoia to come … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2006 7:43 PM
    Comment #146635
    My IP Address is: 24.0.211.6 (determined via http://whatismyip.com), and my E-Mail address is d.a.n@comcast.net
    Yes, I have no doubt who you are. I even know what you look like, and your address and phone number (from a reverse domain lookup for “one-simple-idea.com”)

    No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”. You can post under any e-mail address you want—real or fake—and you can easily post under a different IP address. You can change your IP address at whim anytime you want. You know this. The fact that you’re a software engineer makes it even more ridiculous that you’re playing dumb.

    The fact that I’m also a software engineer, and that I design Web applications like WatchBlog all the time, means I can call you on it quite easily.

    If anyone doubts what I’m saying, I encourage you to try it. Post a new message to WatchBlog. Under the “Name:” field, type in “FA STEPHENS”. Under “Email Address:”, type in anything you want…for example “Hypocrite@one-simple-hypocrite.com”. Now click “Post”. See? Quite easily done. Now go ahead and verify your IP address using d.a.n.’s convenient link. Got it? Okay, let’s demonstrate how easy it is to change it. Simply reboot your cable modem or hang up your DSL line, then reconnect. Try d.a.n.’s convenient link again. Viola! You now have a new IP address! Pick a new troll’s name and post away!

    One word of caution…make sure you use the name of an actual troll that has posted before. That way, you can claim that they’re a real person because they already have a history. The best part of the whole scam is that, since they’re a troll, they’ll never stop in long enough to see that their identify has been hijacked!

    d.a.n. is a software engineer, so he certainly knows all this. So why is d.a.n. pretending he doesn’t? Suspicious, is it not?

    Or, hopefully, FA STEPHENS will return to provide proof himself?
    Oh yes, I’m quite sure he will (nudge, nudge… wink, wink ;-/ ). Make sure you wait at least a couple hours to make it look less suspicious… Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 8:33 PM
    Comment #146677

    Hey Charles, you said I started the name calling, but you waffled right past the facts below that show you started the name calling first (when you said I was “pro-illegal alien and anti-American”).

    What about that? Care to explain that chronology below?

    Of course, you will deny it even though I just proved it. Of course, you can’t admit it. Maybe that’s why you have no credibility here with me or any other posters. I’ve been noticing how you go around calling others names too. Why do you do that? Are you unhappy? You think all of us wrong, and you are right? You think we are all a conspiracy against you? Why are you so bitter and compelled to name-calling? Is it because everyone is part of the consipracy?

    Again, as the following proves, you started the name-calling by calling me “anti-American and pro-illegal alien”:
    This should be most interesting:

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2006 12:09 AM: Now you’re waffling.
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 02:00 AM: … to waffle out of it will be interesting.
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 02:00 AM: undoubtedly, more waffling to follow
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:37 AM: More waffling and contradictions (as predicted).
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 08:38 PM” If you don’t answer these questions, without waffling, then I’m done with you.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM: you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American.
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:58 PM: … and then much waffling
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:58 PM: To back-peddle and now characterize it as something else is waffling.
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:58 PM: general, then that is waffling
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 01:05 AM: Why am I accused of waffling
    Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 01:57 AM: Charles Wager (a.k.a. waffler) wrote: d.a.n., Nice waffling yourself there.

    Then, after all that, Charles Wager called me and other people here, one or more of the following names:
    ___ T H E__N A M E__C A L L I N G__L I S T__PART#1 ____

    • (1) anti-American,

    • (2) pro-illegal alien

    • (3) childish,

    • (4) foolish,

    • (5) hypocrites,

    • (6) stupid,

    • (7) infants,

    • (8) racists,

    • (9) liars,

    • (10) not a very good artist,

    • (11) and now you call FA STEPHENS and Russ M trolls

    Charles Wager wrote: Yes, I have no doubt who you are. I even know what you look like, and your address and phone number (from a reverse domain lookup for “one-simple-idea.com”) No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”.
    Still pushing that myth, Eh? Yeah, right. You just can’t stand the truth. First of all, I nor anyone else need help debunking your statements. You already make that all too easy.
    Charles Wager wrote: You can post under any e-mail address you want—real or fake—and you can easily post under a different IP address. You can change your IP address at whim anytime you want. You know this. The fact that you’re a software engineer makes it even more ridiculous that you’re playing dumb.
    Wrong. If FA STEPHENS posted an E-Mail address, it could be verified. But, as I already said, it is unlikely the WatchBlog Manager would give it to you or I. He would only follow up on it, as they have at times in the past, when it was suspected that the poster was spamming under an alias.
    Charles Wager wrote: The fact that I’m also a software engineer
    Really? You don’t work at the Waffle Hut (see picture above) ?
    Charles Wager wrote: … I design Web applications like WatchBlog all the time, means I can call you on it quite easily.
    Really? Well, you called it completely wrong, since I never posed as FA STEPHENS. You are being paronoid. However, if I can prove it, you would still refuse to believe it, because you would prefer to believe I am posing as FA STEPHENS.
    Charles Wager wrote: Simply reboot your cable modem or hang up your DSL line, then reconnect.
    Wrong. My COMCAST Broadband controls my IP address. I can’t change it. Same for many DSL connections. Releasing and Renewing the IP Address won’t even change it (in many cases) such as mine.
    Charles Wager wrote: Pick a new troll’s name and post away! One word of caution…make sure you use the name of an actual troll that has posted before. That way, you can claim that they’re a real person because they already have a history. The best part of the whole scam is that, since they’re a troll, they’ll never stop in long enough to see that their identify has been hijacked!

    Charles, FA STEPHENS is not me, and I never posed as him.
    I am sure, in your mind, you believe what you are saying, but it is not true.
    Your accusation is a lie. So, if FA STEPHENS appears and proves you wrong, what are you going to say about that ? Eh ? Waffle some more, undoubtedly. I can hear it now. Yeah, but but but, ya’ll are buddies ain’t ya? Ya’ll are conspiring against me, ain’t ya?

    Well, Charles, believe it or not, the whole world is not conspiring against you. FA STEPHENS is a real person and those are his real posts. You can’t accept it because you don’t want to admit he was right about what he said about you. And, as we can all see, you don’t take criticism well … any criticism must be from trolls or lies, and will be met with an onslaught of name-calling as evidenced by your own statements …

    ___ T H E__N A M E__C A L L I N G__L I S T__PART#2 _____

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM:
    That is what is childish and foolish here.
    Stop making love to the straw man and move out of the glass house.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM:
    … you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM:
    … but you are a hypocrite.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM:
    … application of D.A.N. Hipocrisy

    Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM:
    If you’re completely stupid please let me know

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 04:58 PM:
    I apologize to the other readers for continuing to bait d.a.n.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM:
    I’m arguing with an infant.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM:
    since you were offended that means the accusation must be true, therefore by your own admission you are a racist.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM:
    I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.

    ________ T H E__P A R A N O I A__L I S T ________

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM:
    … you’ve matched me name for name.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM:
    And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:16 PM:
    … you’re not a very good artist.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM:
    Quite interesting and coincidental … Two trolls, almost a day apart, both cheerleading for d.a.n. in hit-and-run posts, and both referring to me as “wager dude” in lowercase. Hey d.a.n., do you keep trolls in your pocket?
    And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?

    Charles Wager wrote:
    d.a.n., So you are FA STEPHENS! I didn’t think you’d be so blatant as to risk posting under the same troll name twice! Are you hijacking the handle of the known troll, or have you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I don’t recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once, and certainly not one post right after the other.

    Charles Wager wrote:
    No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”.

    Charles Wager wrote:
    Oh yes, I’m quite sure he will (nudge, nudge… wink, wink ;-/ ). Make sure you wait at least a couple hours to make it look less suspicious.

    __________ T H E__W A F F L E__L I S T _____________

    • (1)Charles Wager first wrote: I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants.
      [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]

    • (2) Charles Wager wrote: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us .
      [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]

    • (3) Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here.
      [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]

    • (4) Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease.
      [That is one of many flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that they are catching diseases from us . This is the beginning of the back peddling and contradictions; So which is it? ]

    • (5) Charles Wager wrote: It is not surprising that foreigners, legal or otherwise, are the bearers of disease.
      [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]

    • (6) Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem.
      [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]

    • (7) Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I will say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up.
      [Charles, perhaps you should look it up, since you are in the habit of using words that you do not even know the meaning of, as evidenced by your own admission above.]

    • (8) Charles Wager wrote:
      The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you do not deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.
      Charles Wager then wrote:
      “when I used the quotes I did not realize it [“faction”] was a real word.”

      Charles Wager then wrote:
      I went to dictionary.com and learned it [faction] actually is a real word.

      Charles Wager then wrote:
      See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I am coining a term.

      Charles Wager then wrote:
      I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.

      Charles Wager wrote:
      … you try to avoid admitting that I was using the word [“faction”] correctly.

      Charles Wager wrote::
      To all rational and intelligent people, it is obvious that I did not mean to use the word “fiction”, because if that had been my intent I would not have put the word in quotes.

      [Uhhhhmm … you got more flip-flops than a waffle house. Every post is a new flip-flog. You already admitted (above) to not knowing that [“faction”] was a real word, then you said you meant to use the word, but you clearly meant to use the word “fiction”, so why now try to act like you meant to use that word all along, and try to convince me that you used the word correctly? That’s really very funny. Why do you now act like you were so clever in the use of a word, when you didn’t even know what it meant? Did you already forget that you already said you did not know it was a real word? Why not admit from the start that it was a typo, and you meant to say “fiction” (not faction)? Why? Because the waffling is so deeply ingrained, that you can not help yourself. Thus, you embarked on yet another round of waffling to cover your ignorance of the meaning of the word “faction”. You’ve got more waffles than and waffle hut. That’s hilarious. This is very entertaining. Please continue.]

    • (9) Charles Wager wrote:I see you have taken the name-calling to a whole new level.
      Charles Wager then writes:… If you are completely stupid please let me know …
      Charles Wager wrote: And still your hypocrisy know no bounds …
      [Interesting … who is doing all the name calling ?]

    • (10) Charles Wager wrote:I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.
      [Wow…yet another flip-flop. First it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. Then it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. And now you finally admit that you did not know “faction” was a real word as I orignally suspected. Talk about shootin’ yourself in the foot ! ?]

    • (11) Charles Wager wrote:I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.
      [Imagine that. Now, of all people, Charles Wager is calling me a liar too ? The propensity for name-calling almost equals the compulsive waffling. ]

    So, when all else fails, and you can’t win an argument fair and square, you acuse other posters of being trolls and posing as others? Everyone else is wrong, and anyone that disagrees with you must be a troll.

    [ … stay tuned … more troll conspiracies and delusional paranoia to come , as the lists grow and grow … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2006 10:29 PM
    Comment #146732
    Wrong. If FA STEPHENS posted an E-Mail address, it could be verified.
    All they could verify is whether it works or not. They couldn’t tell you who it actually belongs to. They couldn’t tell you if FA STEPHENS is a different person from d.a.n., just that a different email address is being entered for each name. Of course, the WatchBlog manager wouldn’t bother verifying any of this—they would simply delete all our posts for violating the policy. Basically, d.a.n. is just using this to distract from what he obviously knows—that anyone can easily make an anonymous post (or post as someone else) with nobody the wiser.
    My COMCAST Broadband controls my IP address. I can’t change it. Same for many DSL connections. Releasing and Renewing the IP Address won’t even change it (in many cases) such as mine.
    You’re right about one thing, there are exceptions to the rule. Some cable providers tend to reassign the same IP address, although it’s never guaranteed you’ll get the same one unless you’re paying for that privilege. However d.a.n., as a software engineer, also knows that there are many ways to force a change (use a different network card, a different router, change your MAC address manually, or simply call customer support). But let’s not even argue this—let me just go over a few of the many other ways to post under more than one IP address:

    1. Use a friend’s computer
    2. Post once from BroadBand, then again from a dialup connection.
    3. Use a wireless hot spot
    4. Post at work, then post at home
    5. Use Window’s Remote Connection feature to connect to a different computer, then post from the new computer.
    6. Use Telnet to connect to a different machine.
    7. Post from an Internet cafe.

    The possibilities are endless. d.a.n., being a software engineer, knows this for a fact. Why is he lying about it? It’s easy to verify what I’m saying, so why would d.a.n. be lying about it unless he’s trying to cover something up? Why would d.a.n. blatantly break the WatchBlog policy if they could ban him forever from posting? He posts too regularly to risk that… Does he really think other posters are too stupid to verify what I’m telling them?

    d.a.n., if you really want me to, I will demonstrate to our (non-existent) audience how easy it is to do. That will prove that you are lying. I became convinced of your guilt as soon as you tried to cover it up with falsehoods. As I said, I would never sink to the level of fake-posting just to make myself look better, so I will only do so if you give me permission to do so—and with full disclosure that it’s me doing it.

    Or maybe you would like to do us both a favor… Contact the WatchBlog managers and tell them your concerns…and see how quickly they come to this thread and delete all of our posts as if they never happened. Perhaps they’ll even ban both of our IP addresses. That will be perfect actually, because the very next post you make (from your new IP) will be further proof that you are lying.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 12:23 AM
    Comment #146750

    Charles, you got a lot of theories about imposters and trolls. Too bad it’s all unnecessary. You want very badly to believe that don’t you? However, I have never posed as anyone here. You can’t stand it that others don’t agree with you, so you conclude it is a conspiracy or imposters, trolls, and even accuse me of posing as FA STEPHENS, all signs of delusion and paranoia.

    Charles, you still don’t want to talk about the fact that you started the name calling, but you keep waffling right past the facts below that show you started the name calling first (when you said I was “pro-illegal alien and anti-American”).
    You don’t want to talk about that, Eh ?
    Again, as the following proves, you started the name-calling by calling me “anti-American and pro-illegal alien”:

    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 4, 2006 12:09 AM: Now you’re waffling.

    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 02:00 AM: … to waffle out of it will be interesting.

    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 02:00 AM: undoubtedly, more waffling to follow

    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:37 AM: More waffling and contradictions (as predicted).

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 08:38 PM” If you don’t answer these questions, without waffling, then I’m done with you.

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM: you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American.

    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:58 PM: … and then much waffling

    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:58 PM: To back-peddle and now characterize it as something else is waffling.

    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 5, 2006 10:58 PM: general, then that is waffling

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 01:05 AM: Why am I accused of waffling

    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 01:57 AM: Charles Wager (a.k.a. waffler)

    So, all I ever said was (a.k.a. waffler).
    How does that compare to all the names (below) that you called me and other people here:
    ___ T H E___N A M E___C A L L I N G___L I S T ____

    • (1) anti-American,

    • (2) pro-illegal alien

    • (3) childish,

    • (4) foolish,

    • (5) hypocrite,

    • (6) stupid,

    • (7) infant,

    • (8) racist,

    • (9) liar,

    • (10) not a very good artist,

    • (11) and now you call FA STEPHENS and Russ M trolls

    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Yes, I have no doubt who you are. I even know what you look like, and your address and phone number (from a reverse domain lookup for “one-simple-idea.com”) No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”. Still pushing that myth, Eh? [Yeah, right. You just can’t stand the truth. First of all, I nor anyone else need help debunking your statements. You already make that all too easy.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: You can post under any e-mail address you want—real or fake—and you can easily post under a different IP address. You can change your IP address at whim anytime you want. You know this. The fact that you’re a software engineer makes it even more ridiculous that you’re playing dumb. Charles, You are a software engineer? Naaah. Don’t you work at the Waffle Hut? I think you know I didn’t pose as FA STEPHENS, but you can’t admit it and lose face … but the fact is, you’ve already revealed far too much.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: The fact that I’m also a software engineer [Really? You don’t work at the Waffle Hut ?]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: … I design Web applications like WatchBlog all the time, means I can call you on it quite easily. [Really? Well, you called it completely wrong, since I never posed as FA STEPHENS. You are paronoid. However, if I can prove it, you would still refuse to believe it, because you would prefer to believe I am posing as FA STEPHENS.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Simply reboot your cable modem or hang up your DSL line, then reconnect. [You are desparate, and gasping for straws. You know I didn’t pose as anyone else, but you prefer to believe in paranoid conspiracy theories.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Pick a new troll’s name and post away! One word of caution, make sure you use the name of an actual troll that has posted before. That way, you can claim that they’re a real person because they already have a history. The best part of the whole scam is that, since they’re a troll, they’ll never stop in long enough to see that their identify has been hijacked! [Like I said, I never posed as anyone else. But, you prefer to not believe the truth. The truth is too painful. So you prefer to believe that trolls and everyone else is conspiring against you. So, if FA STEPHENS appears and proves you wrong, what are you going to say about that? Eh? Waffle some more, undoubtedly. I can hear it now. Yeah, but but but but, ya’ll are buddies ain’t ya? Ya’ll are conspiring against me, ain’t ya? Well, Charles, believe it or not, the whole world is not conspiring against you. FA STEPHENS is a real person and those are his real posts. You can’t accept it because you don’t want to admit that FA STEPHENS was right about you. And, as we can all see, you don’t take criticism well … any criticism, according to you, must be from trolls, and are all lies, and they will be met with an onslaught of name-calling as evidenced by your own statements … ]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: That is what is childish and foolish here. Stop making love to the straw man and move out of the glass house.
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM: … you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: … but you are a hypocrite. [That’s about as blatant as you can get when it comes to name calling.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: … application of D.A.N. Hipocrisy
    • Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: If you’re completely stupid please let me know
    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 04:58 PM: I apologize to the other readers for continuing to bait d.a.n. [Charles makes empty promises, but still returns for more.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: I’m arguing with an infant. [Really? Why do you keep returning for more? Are you a glutton for punishment?]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: since you were offended that means the accusation must be true, therefore by your own admission you are a racist. [That is a pretty blatant example of name calling too.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.[Nope. It’s true and there’s no wafflin’ out of it.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM: You forget that I only called you one or two names [OOpppss … see next statement. Is it one name or two names? Charles does not remember because he has hurled so many names at everyone, he’s lost count. The truth is, he has used about a dozen, as shown above and below]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:57 PM: I’ve only called you one name, hypocrite [Ummmm….Charles, you already said about 53 minutes ago that you called me one or two names. You ‘ve resorted to so much name calling, you don’t even remember]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:57 PM: I could do the same thing to your posts, which I’ve done up to this point only as a means of illustrating your hypocrisy. However, in spite of how low this discussion has sunk I’m still not willing to join you in unmitigated hypocrisy. [Really? Just look how low you have sunk by your very own statements, above and below.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM: Don’t worry, you can engage in verbal masturbation with yourself all day long, under as many different aliases as you want, and I won’t be joining you in that orgy of hypocrisy.[Still believe in aliases, eh? You can stand it that others too see you for what you are, can you? Thus, you invent in your mind that they are trolls.]

    ______T H E___P A R A N O I A___L I S T________

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM:
      … you’ve matched me name for name.

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM:
      And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:16 PM:
      … you’re not a very good artist.

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM:
      Quite interesting and coincidental … Two trolls, almost a day apart, both cheerleading for d.a.n. in hit-and-run posts, and both referring to me as “wager dude” in lowercase. Hey d.a.n., do you keep trolls in your pocket?
      And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?

    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM:
      d.a.n., So you are FA STEPHENS! I didn’t think you’d be so blatant as to risk posting under the same troll name twice! Are you hijacking the handle of the known troll, or have you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I don’t recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once, and certainly not one post right after the other.

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM:
      No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”.

    • Posted By: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM:
      Oh yes, I’m quite sure he will (nudge, nudge… wink, wink ;-/ ). Make sure you wait at least a couple hours to make it look less suspicious.

    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM:
      you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I don’t recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once

    ______ T H E ____(long) W A F F L E ___ L I S T _______

    • (1) Posted by Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 02:43 PM: Charles Wager first wrote: I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants.
      [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]

    • (2) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 05:52 PM: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us .
      [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]

    • (3) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here.
      [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]

    • (4) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease.
      [That is one of a myriad of subsequent flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that “they are catching diseases from us.” This is the beginning of the back peddling and countless contradictions; So which is it? They are, or they aren’t? ]

    • (5) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: It is not surprising that foreigners, legal or otherwise, are the bearers of disease.
      [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]

    • (6) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem.
      [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]

    • (7) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 04:03 AM: Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I will say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up.
      [Charles, perhaps you should look it up, since you are in the habit of using words that you do not even know the meaning of, as evidenced by your own admission above.]

    • (8) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:42 PM: Charles Wager wrote:
      The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you do not deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.
    • (9) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      “when I used the quotes I did not realize it [“faction”] was a real word.”

    • (10) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      I went to dictionary.com and learned it [faction] actually is a real word.
      [You didn’t know faction was a real word? But, you have the gall to tell other people to look up the meaning of words?]

    • (11) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I am coining a term.
      [Yeah right. You just admitted you didn’t know it was a word. Guess you forget? Eh?]

    • (12) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.

    • (13) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager wrote:
      … you try to avoid admitting that I was using the word [“faction”] correctly. [Charles, you already admitted you didn’t know it was even a word.]

    • (14) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: Charles Wager wrote::

    • To all rational and intelligent people, it is obvious that I did not mean to use the word “fiction”, because if that had been my intent I would not have put the word in quotes. [Uhhhhmm … you got more flip-flops than a waffle house. Every post is a new flip-flog. You already admitted (above) to not knowing that [“faction”] was a real word, then you said you meant to use the word, but you clearly meant to use the word “fiction”, so why now try to act like you meant to use that word all along, and try to convince me that you used the word correctly? That’s really very funny. Why do you now act like you were so clever in the use of a word, when you didn’t even know what it meant? Did you already forget that you already said you did not know it was a real word? Why not admit from the start that it was a typo, and you meant to say “fiction” (not faction)? Why? Because the waffling is so deeply ingrained, that you can not help yourself. Thus, you embarked on yet another round of waffling to cover your ignorance of the meaning of the word “faction”. You’ve got more waffles than and waffle hut. That’s hilarious. This is very entertaining. Please continue.]
    • (15) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: Charles Wager wrote:I see you have taken the name-calling to a whole new level.
      Charles Wager then writes:… If you are completely stupid please let me know …
      Charles Wager wrote: And still your hypocrisy know no bounds …
      [Interesting … who is doing all the name calling ?]

    • (16) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager wrote:I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.
      [Wow…yet another flip-flop. First it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. Then it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. And now you finally admit that you did not know “faction” was a real word as I orignally suspected. Talk about shootin’ yourself in the foot ! ?]

    • (17) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: Charles Wager wrote:I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.
      [Imagine that. Now, of all people, Charles Wager is calling me a liar too ? The propensity for name-calling almost equals the compulsive waffling. ]

    [ … stay tuned … as the troll imposter theories and conspiracies grow ever more ridiculous … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2006 2:19 AM
    Comment #146752

    d.a.n.,

    You can’t stand it that others don’t agree with you, so you conclude it is a conspiracy or imposters, trolls, and even accuse me of posing as FA STEPHENS, all signs of delusion and paranoia.
    So first you say you couldn’t possibly have posted as FA STEPHENS, and now you’re back to simply saying you didn’t. You should have stuck with that story from the start. By not doing so, you confirmed your guilt to me.
    d.a.n., if you really want me to, I will demonstrate to our (non-existent) audience how easy it is to do. That will prove that you are lying.
    Didn’t want any of our non-existent readers to see you’re full of it, huh? Fair enough.

    As far as I can tell, there’s nothing in the other 1000+ lines you posted that I haven’t already responded to. That won’t change, no matter how many times you cut and paste the same drivel.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 2:39 AM
    Comment #146755

    Charles Wager, you are convinced of many things in that mind of yours. You want so hard to believe I was posing as others so that you don’t have to deal with the fact that everyone sees you for exactly what you really are.

    You can’t confirm guilt where there’s nothing to be guilty of.
    You are lying.
    The real FA STEPHENS already knows it.

    Your theories are worthless, since no one is posing as anyone else, and you know it (or maybe you don’t considering the levels of delusion and paranoia), but don’t worry … the real FA STEPHENS and others already know you are lying.

    Also, you must like seeing this stuff, since you keep returning. Here it is again … just the facts …

    All the names that Charles Wager has called people on this thread:
    ___ T H E___N A M E___C A L L I N G___L I S T ____

    • (1) anti-American,

    • (2) pro-illegal alien

    • (3) childish,

    • (4) foolish,

    • (5) hypocrite,

    • (6) stupid,

    • (7) infant,

    • (8) racist,

    • (9) liar,

    • (10) not a very good artist,

    • (11) full of it,

    • (12) and now you call FA STEPHENS and Russ M trolls

    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Yes, I have no doubt who you are. I even know what you look like, and your address and phone number (from a reverse domain lookup for “one-simple-idea.com”) No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”. Still pushing that myth, Eh? [Yeah, right. You just can’t stand the truth. First of all, I nor anyone else need help debunking your statements. You already make that all too easy.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: You can post under any e-mail address you want—real or fake—and you can easily post under a different IP address. You can change your IP address at whim anytime you want. You know this. The fact that you’re a software engineer makes it even more ridiculous that you’re playing dumb. Charles, You are a software engineer? Naaah. Don’t you work at the Waffle Hut? I think you know I didn’t pose as FA STEPHENS, but you can’t admit it and lose face … but the fact is, you’ve already revealed far too much.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: The fact that I’m also a software engineer [Really? You don’t work at the Waffle Hut ?]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: … I design Web applications like WatchBlog all the time, means I can call you on it quite easily. [Really? Well, you called it completely wrong, since I never posed as FA STEPHENS. You are paronoid. However, if I can prove it, you would still refuse to believe it, because you would prefer to believe I am posing as FA STEPHENS.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Simply reboot your cable modem or hang up your DSL line, then reconnect. [You are desparate, and gasping for straws. You know I didn’t pose as anyone else, but you prefer to believe in paranoid conspiracy theories.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Pick a new troll’s name and post away! One word of caution, make sure you use the name of an actual troll that has posted before. That way, you can claim that they’re a real person because they already have a history. The best part of the whole scam is that, since they’re a troll, they’ll never stop in long enough to see that their identify has been hijacked! [Like I said, I never posed as anyone else. But, you prefer to not believe the truth. The truth is too painful. So you prefer to believe that trolls and everyone else is conspiring against you. So, if FA STEPHENS appears and proves you wrong, what are you going to say about that? Eh? Waffle some more, undoubtedly. I can hear it now. Yeah, but but but but, ya’ll are buddies ain’t ya? Ya’ll are conspiring against me, ain’t ya? Well, Charles, believe it or not, the whole world is not conspiring against you. FA STEPHENS is a real person and those are his real posts. You can’t accept it because you don’t want to admit that FA STEPHENS was right about you. And, as we can all see, you don’t take criticism well … any criticism, according to you, must be from trolls, and are all lies, and they will be met with an onslaught of name-calling as evidenced by your own statements … ]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: That is what is childish and foolish here. Stop making love to the straw man and move out of the glass house.
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM: … you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: … but you are a hypocrite. [That’s about as blatant as you can get when it comes to name calling.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: … application of D.A.N. Hipocrisy
    • Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: If you’re completely stupid please let me know
    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 04:58 PM: I apologize to the other readers for continuing to bait d.a.n. [Charles makes empty promises, but still returns for more.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: I’m arguing with an infant. [Really? Why do you keep returning for more? Are you a glutton for punishment?]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: since you were offended that means the accusation must be true, therefore by your own admission you are a racist. [That is a pretty blatant example of name calling too.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.[Nope. It’s true and there’s no wafflin’ out of it.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM: You forget that I only called you one or two names [OOpppss … see next statement. Is it one name or two names? Charles does not remember because he has hurled so many names at everyone, he’s lost count. The truth is, he has used about a dozen, as shown above and below]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:57 PM: I’ve only called you one name, hypocrite [Ummmm….Charles, you already said about 53 minutes ago that you called me one or two names. You ‘ve resorted to so much name calling, you don’t even remember]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:57 PM: I could do the same thing to your posts, which I’ve done up to this point only as a means of illustrating your hypocrisy. However, in spite of how low this discussion has sunk I’m still not willing to join you in unmitigated hypocrisy. [Really? Just look how low you have sunk by your very own statements, above and below.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM: Don’t worry, you can engage in verbal masturbation with yourself all day long, under as many different aliases as you want, and I won’t be joining you in that orgy of hypocrisy.[Still believe in aliases, eh? You can stand it that others too see you for what you are, can you? Thus, you invent in your mind that they are trolls.]

    ______T H E___P A R A N O I A___L I S T________

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM:
      … you’ve matched me name for name.

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM:
      And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:16 PM:
      … you’re not a very good artist.

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM:
      Quite interesting and coincidental … Two trolls, almost a day apart, both cheerleading for d.a.n. in hit-and-run posts, and both referring to me as “wager dude” in lowercase. Hey d.a.n., do you keep trolls in your pocket?
      And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?

    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM:
      d.a.n., So you are FA STEPHENS! I didn’t think you’d be so blatant as to risk posting under the same troll name twice! Are you hijacking the handle of the known troll, or have you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I do not recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once, and certainly not one post right after the other.

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM:
      No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”.

    • Posted By: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM:
      Oh yes, I’m quite sure he will (nudge, nudge, wink, wink ;-/ ). Make sure you wait at least a couple hours to make it look less suspicious.

    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM:
      you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I don’t recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once

    ______ T H E ____(long) W A F F L E ___ L I S T _______

    • (1) Posted by Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 02:43 PM: Charles Wager first wrote: I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants.
      [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]

    • (2) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 05:52 PM: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us .
      [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]

    • (3) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here.
      [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]

    • (4) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease.
      [That is one of a myriad of subsequent flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that “they are catching diseases from us.” This is the beginning of the back peddling and countless contradictions; So which is it? They are, or they aren’t? ]

    • (5) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: It is not surprising that foreigners, legal or otherwise, are the bearers of disease.
      [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]

    • (6) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem.
      [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]

    • (7) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 04:03 AM: Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I will say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up.
      [Charles, perhaps you should look it up, since you are in the habit of using words that you do not even know the meaning of, as evidenced by your own admission above.]

    • (8) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:42 PM: Charles Wager wrote:
      The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you do not deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.
    • (9) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      “when I used the quotes I did not realize it [“faction”] was a real word.”

    • (10) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      I went to dictionary.com and learned it [faction] actually is a real word.
      [You didn’t know faction was a real word? But, you have the gall to tell other people to look up the meaning of words?]

    • (11) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I am coining a term.
      [Yeah right. You just admitted you didn’t know it was a word. Guess you forget? Eh?]

    • (12) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.

    • (13) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager wrote:
      … you try to avoid admitting that I was using the word [“faction”] correctly. [Charles, you already admitted you didn’t know it was even a word.]

    • (14) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: Charles Wager wrote::

    • To all rational and intelligent people, it is obvious that I did not mean to use the word “fiction”, because if that had been my intent I would not have put the word in quotes. [Uhhhhmm … you got more flip-flops than a waffle house. Every post is a new flip-flop. You already admitted (above) to not knowing that [“faction”] was a real word, then you said you meant to use the word, but you clearly meant to use the word “fiction”, so why now try to act like you meant to use that word all along, and try to convince me that you used the word correctly? That’s really very funny. Why do you now act like you were so clever in the use of a word, when you didn’t even know what it meant? Did you already forget that you already said you did not know it was a real word? Why not admit from the start that it was a typo, and you meant to say “fiction” (not faction)? Why? Because the waffling is so deeply ingrained, that you can not help yourself. Thus, you embarked on yet another round of waffling to cover your ignorance of the meaning of the word “faction”. You’ve got more waffles than and waffle hut. That’s hilarious. This is very entertaining. Please continue.]
    • (15) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: Charles Wager wrote:I see you have taken the name-calling to a whole new level.
      Charles Wager then writes:… If you are completely stupid please let me know …
      Charles Wager wrote: And still your hypocrisy know no bounds …
      [Interesting … who is doing all the name calling ?]

    • (16) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager wrote:I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.
      [Wow…yet another flip-flop. First it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. Then it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. And now you finally admit that you did not know “faction” was a real word as I orignally suspected. Talk about shootin’ yourself in the foot ! ?]

    • (17) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: Charles Wager wrote:I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.
      [Imagine that. Now, of all people, Charles Wager is calling me a liar too ? The propensity for name-calling almost equals the compulsive waffling. ]

    • (18) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: Charles Wager wrote: Didn’t want any of our non-existent readers to see you’re full of it, huh? [Now, Charles is adding more name calling to his growing list. ]


    [ … stay tuned … as the paranoia grows … and C.W.’s lists grow ever longer … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2006 2:56 AM
    Comment #146757

    d.a.n.,

    You can’t confirm guilt where there’s nothing to be guilty of.
    Repeat it as much as you like, but I know the truth, and that’s all that matters to me. You’ve illustrated your hypocrisy over and over again, and no matter how many trolls you create it won’t change that.
    As far as I can tell, there’s nothing in the other 1500+ lines you posted that I haven’t already responded to. That won’t change, no matter how many times you cut and paste the same drivel.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 3:52 AM
    Comment #146758

    Charles Wager,

    You think you know the truth.
    The fact is, only FA STEPHENS and I know the real truth, and the truth is you are wrong.

    What you beleive is your own delusional lies.
    I’m sitting here with the knowledge of the real truth.
    I know that your accussations are lies.
    You can’t know the truth.
    You have a suspicion rooted in paranoia, but it is a false delusion.

    Please believe your own lies if you like.
    Please continue to make yourself look ridiculous with that lie?

    Yes, please keep alleging every one that does not agree with you is a troll.
    You’d rather believe that than the truth.
    You’d rather believe your own lies.
    You can’t handle the truth.
    You just keep diggin’ that hole of yours deeper and deeper.

    I know the truth.

    FA Stephens knows it.

    Everyone knows it but you.

    Here are your updated lists.

    They just keep growing longer and longer.

    Your last post falls into the “PARANOIA LIST” below.

    ___ T H E___N A M E___C A L L I N G___L I S T ____
    All the names that Charles Wager has called people on this thread:

    • (1) anti-American,

    • (2) pro-illegal alien

    • (3) childish,

    • (4) foolish,

    • (5) hypocrite,

    • (6) stupid,

    • (7) infant,

    • (8) racist,

    • (9) liar,

    • (10) not a very good artist,

    • (11) full of it,

    • (12) and now you call FA STEPHENS and Russ M trolls

    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Yes, I have no doubt who you are. I even know what you look like, and your address and phone number (from a reverse domain lookup for “one-simple-idea.com”) No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”. Still pushing that myth, Eh? [Yeah, right. You just can’t stand the truth. First of all, I nor anyone else need help debunking your statements. You already make that all too easy.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: You can post under any e-mail address you want, real or fake, and you can easily post under a different IP address. You can change your IP address at whim anytime you want. You know this. The fact that you’re a software engineer makes it even more ridiculous that you’re playing dumb. Charles, You are a software engineer? Naaah. Don’t you work at the Waffle Hut? I think you know I didn’t pose as FA STEPHENS, but you can’t admit it and lose face … but the fact is, you’ve already revealed far too much.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: The fact that I’m also a software engineer [Really? You don’t work at the Waffle Hut ?]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: … I design Web applications like WatchBlog all the time, means I can call you on it quite easily. [Really? Well, you called it completely wrong, since I never posed as FA STEPHENS. You are paronoid. However, if I can prove it, you would still refuse to believe it, because you would prefer to believe I am posing as FA STEPHENS.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Simply reboot your cable modem or hang up your DSL line, then reconnect. [You are desparate, and gasping for straws. You know I didn’t pose as anyone else, but you prefer to believe in paranoid conspiracy theories.]
    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Pick a new troll’s name and post away! One word of caution, make sure you use the name of an actual troll that has posted before. That way, you can claim that they’re a real person because they already have a history. The best part of the whole scam is that, since they’re a troll, they’ll never stop in long enough to see that their identify has been hijacked! [Like I said, I never posed as anyone else. But, you prefer to not believe the truth. The truth is too painful. So you prefer to believe that trolls and everyone else is conspiring against you. So, if FA STEPHENS appears and proves you wrong, what are you going to say about that? Eh? Waffle some more, undoubtedly. I can hear it now. Yeah, but but but but, ya’ll are buddies ain’t ya? Ya’ll are conspiring against me, ain’t ya? Well, Charles, believe it or not, the whole world is not conspiring against you. FA STEPHENS is a real person and those are his real posts. You can’t accept it because you don’t want to admit that FA STEPHENS was right about you. And, as we can all see, you don’t take criticism well … any criticism, according to you, must be from trolls, and are all lies, and they will be met with an onslaught of name-calling as evidenced by your own statements … ]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: That is what is childish and foolish here. Stop making love to the straw man and move out of the glass house.
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM: … you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: … but you are a hypocrite. [That’s about as blatant as you can get when it comes to name calling.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: … application of D.A.N. Hipocrisy
    • Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: If you’re completely stupid please let me know
    • Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 04:58 PM: I apologize to the other readers for continuing to bait d.a.n. [Charles makes empty promises, but still returns for more.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: I’m arguing with an infant. [Really? Why do you keep returning for more? Are you a glutton for punishment?]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: since you were offended that means the accusation must be true, therefore by your own admission you are a racist. [That is a pretty blatant example of name calling too.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.[Nope. It’s true and there’s no wafflin’ out of it.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM: You forget that I only called you one or two names [OOpppss … see next statement. Is it one name or two names? Charles does not remember because he has hurled so many names at everyone, he’s lost count. The truth is, he has used about a dozen, as shown above and below]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:57 PM: I’ve only called you one name, hypocrite [Ummmm….Charles, you already said about 53 minutes ago that you called me one or two names. You ‘ve resorted to so much name calling, you don’t even remember]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:57 PM: I could do the same thing to your posts, which I’ve done up to this point only as a means of illustrating your hypocrisy. However, in spite of how low this discussion has sunk I’m still not willing to join you in unmitigated hypocrisy. [Really? Just look how low you have sunk by your very own statements, above and below.]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM: Don’t worry, you can engage in verbal masturbation with yourself all day long, under as many different aliases as you want, and I won’t be joining you in that orgy of hypocrisy.[Still believe in aliases, eh? You can stand it that others too see you for what you are, can you? Thus, you invent in your mind that they are trolls.]

    ______T H E___P A R A N O I A___L I S T________

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM:
      … you’ve matched me name for name.

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM:
      And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:16 PM:
      … you’re not a very good artist.

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM:
      Quite interesting and coincidental … Two trolls, almost a day apart, both cheerleading for d.a.n. in hit-and-run posts, and both referring to me as “wager dude” in lowercase. Hey d.a.n., do you keep trolls in your pocket?
      And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?

    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM:
      d.a.n., So you are FA STEPHENS! I didn’t think you’d be so blatant as to risk posting under the same troll name twice! Are you hijacking the handle of the known troll, or have you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I do not recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once, and certainly not one post right after the other.

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM:
      No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”.

    • Posted By: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM:
      Oh yes, I’m quite sure he will (nudge, nudge, wink, wink ;-/ ). Make sure you wait at least a couple hours to make it look less suspicious.

    • Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM:
      you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I do not recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once

    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 03:52 AM:
      Repeat it as much as you like, but I know the truth, and that’s all that matters to me. You’ve illustrated your hypocrisy over and over again, and no matter how many trolls you create it won’t change that.
      [This is funny because it is false. Charles Wager has convinced himself that I posed as FA STEPHENS, or FA STEPHENS is a friend of mine, or a troll. The irony is that the Charles Wager does not know the truth. I did not pose as FA STEPHENS. Charles Wager just can not accept the reality that others do not agree with his bitter, delusional, and paranoid lies. Anyone that does not agree with him, is, in that mind of his, a troll, or a member of a conspiracy, or me posing as one of the other people. That’s the truth, but Charles Wager is not able to see it. And, if FA STEPHENS shows up later to somehow prove he is a real person (not me), Charles Wager would still refuse to believe it, because the truth is not in his vocabulary any more than “faction” was. And to top it all off, he has the gall to call everyone else hypocrites, without realizing or ever admitting that the true hypocrisy is revealed for all to see by his own lies and paranoid, delusional fantasies. ]

    ______ T H E ____ W A F F L E ___ L I S T _______

    • (1) Posted by Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 02:43 PM: Charles Wager first wrote: I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants.
      [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]

    • (2) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 05:52 PM: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us .
      [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]

    • (3) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here.
      [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]

    • (4) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease.
      [That is one of a myriad of subsequent flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that “they are catching diseases from us.” This is the beginning of the back peddling and countless contradictions; So which is it? They are, or they aren’t? ]

    • (5) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: It is not surprising that foreigners, legal or otherwise, are the bearers of disease.
      [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]

    • (6) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem.
      [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]

    • (7) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 04:03 AM: Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I will say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up.
      [Charles, perhaps you should look it up, since you are in the habit of using words that you do not even know the meaning of, as evidenced by your own admission above.]

    • (8) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:42 PM: Charles Wager wrote:
      The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you do not deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.
    • (9) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      “when I used the quotes I did not realize it [“faction”] was a real word.”

    • (10) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      I went to dictionary.com and learned it [faction] actually is a real word.
      [You didn’t know faction was a real word? But, you have the gall to tell other people to look up the meaning of words?]

    • (11) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I am coining a term.
      [Yeah right. You just admitted you didn’t know it was a word. Guess you forget? Eh?]

    • (12) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.

    • (13) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager wrote:
      … you try to avoid admitting that I was using the word [“faction”] correctly. [Charles, you already admitted you didn’t know it was even a word.]

    • (14) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: Charles Wager wrote::

    • To all rational and intelligent people, it is obvious that I did not mean to use the word “fiction”, because if that had been my intent I would not have put the word in quotes. [Uhhhhmm … you got more flip-flops than a waffle house. Every post is a new flip-flop. You already admitted (above) to not knowing that [“faction”] was a real word, then you said you meant to use the word, but you clearly meant to use the word “fiction”, so why now try to act like you meant to use that word all along, and try to convince me that you used the word correctly? That’s really very funny. Why do you now act like you were so clever in the use of a word, when you didn’t even know what it meant? Did you already forget that you already said you did not know it was a real word? Why not admit from the start that it was a typo, and you meant to say “fiction” (not faction)? Why? Because the waffling is so deeply ingrained, that you can not help yourself. Thus, you embarked on yet another round of waffling to cover your ignorance of the meaning of the word “faction”. You’ve got more waffles than and waffle hut. That’s hilarious. This is very entertaining. Please continue.]
    • (15) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: Charles Wager wrote:I see you have taken the name-calling to a whole new level.
      Charles Wager then writes:… If you are completely stupid please let me know …
      Charles Wager wrote: And still your hypocrisy know no bounds …
      [Interesting … who is doing all the name calling ?]

    • (16) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager wrote:I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.
      [Wow…yet another flip-flop. First it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. Then it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. And now you finally admit that you did not know “faction” was a real word as I orignally suspected. Talk about shootin’ yourself in the foot ! ?]

    • (17) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: Charles Wager wrote:I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.
      [Imagine that. Now, of all people, Charles Wager is calling me a liar too ? The propensity for name-calling almost equals the compulsive waffling. ]

    • (18) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 02:39 AM: Charles Wager wrote: Didn’t want any of our non-existent readers to see you’re full of it, huh? [Now, Charles is adding more name calling to his growing list. ]

    [ … stay tuned … the lists gets longer … Charles Wager is convinced that I am posing as FA STEPHENS … the extreme level of delusional paranoia is truly amazing … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2006 5:00 AM
    Comment #146810
    The fact is, only FA STEPHENS and I know the real truth, and the truth is you are wrong.
    Your dissembling, your desperation, and your feeble attempts to save face and distract are all the truth I need. To me, your actions are more of an admission of guilt than a signed confession.

    As far as I can tell, there’s nothing in the other 2000+ lines you posted that I haven’t already responded to. That won’t change, no matter how many times you cut and paste the same drivel. Repetition does not wash away hypocrisy.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 10:37 AM
    Comment #146827

    You are desparate, as demonstrated by your lie that I am posing as other people.

    You are incredulous that anyone else would disagree with you that you must invent lies, that you can convince yourself of.

    You can not accept the fact that FA STEPHENS and Russ M are genuine posters that don’t agree with your lies and name calling, so you call them trolls, imposters, or my buddies. LOL

    You think you know the truth, but you are so busted. You statements are all lies or name calling, as evidenced by the long chronology of your very own statements above.

    Are you also masochistic?
    If not, perhaps you should refrain from returning here over and over to make yourself look ever more foolish, delusional, paranoid, and create new lies.

    Since I never posed as FA STEPHENS, I know for certain that your accusation is a lie.

    Your argumenets got thoroughly trounced at every turn, and in desparation, you resort to name calling and lies claiming that those that don’t agree with you must be shills or trolls or my buddies. I can’t wait to see what’s next.

    All the lines above are your own statements.
    Interesting don’t you think?
    Is there anything more you’d like to add?
    More lies?
    More paranoia?
    More waffling?
    More name calling?

    Do your own statements repeated above bother you? No? Then you should not mind them being repeated?

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2006 11:16 AM
    Comment #146831
    If not, perhaps you should refrain from returning here over and over to make yourself look ever more foolish, delusional, paranoid, and create new lies.
    I figure the more time you spend distracted here, trying to get the last word, the less time you spend spreading your hypocrisy on other threads.
    Since I never posed as FA STEPHENS, I know for certain that your accusation is a lie.
    And yet you felt the need to make up lies in order to “prove” that you could not have done so. You can believe whatever you need to in order to live with your own hypocrisy and lies. It’s no skin off my back.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 11:29 AM
    Comment #146907

    Come on Charles. Can’t you do better?
    You seem to be running out of steam.
    Give us more to add to your lists of statements.

    No one else needs to make up lies like you did about me posing as FA STEPHENS.

    Your statements below speak for themselves.
    All that is needed is to list your statements for all to see.

    See all of your name calling (which you deny), accusing others on this thread that they are shills and trolls, telling lies that others are posing as FA STEPHENS, etc., etc., etc.

    See your new entries and lists for you below. There is now a list of lies you have told about me and others here on this thread.

    Those are all the things you, Charles Wager, said.
    Would you care to explain any of those things you wrote below? It’s interesting, don’t you think, when you organize all of your statements where you call other people names, waffle, and tell lies like the one where you accuse me of posting as FA STEPHENS ? No? You don’t like that? Why not? They are your statements, after all? Or, would you like to deny that too?

    ___ T H E___N A M E___C A L L I N G___L I S T ____
    All the names that Charles Wager calls other people …

    • (1) anti-American,

    • (2) pro-illegal alien

    • (3) childish,

    • (4) foolish,

    • (5) hypocrite,

    • (6) stupid,

    • (7) infant,

    • (8) racist,

    • (9) liar,

    • (10) not a very good artist,

    • (11) and Charles Wager calls FA STEPHENS and Russ M trolls

    • (01) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM: … you’ve matched me name for name.[Really? That is truly absurd, as Charles says that in one breath, and calls other people a whole slew of names it the other breath.]
    • (02) Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Yes, I have no doubt who you are. I even know what you look like, and your address and phone number (from a reverse domain lookup for “one-simple-idea.com”) No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”. Still pushing that myth, Eh? [Yeah, right. You just can’t stand the truth. First of all, I nor anyone else need help debunking your statements. You already make that all too easy.]
    • (03) Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: You can post under any e-mail address you want, real or fake, and you can easily post under a different IP address. You can change your IP address at whim anytime you want. You know this. The fact that you’re a software engineer makes it even more ridiculous that you’re playing dumb. Charles, You are a software engineer? Naaah. Don’t you work at the Waffle Hut? I think you know I didn’t pose as FA STEPHENS, but you can’t admit it and lose face … but the fact is, you have been caught red-handed in a lie. And, yet, you continue to tell that lie over and over. Telling the same lie over ad over will not make it true (except perhaps in your own mind).]
    • (04) Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: The fact that I’m also a software engineer [Really? You don’t work at the Waffle Hut ?]
    • (05) Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: … I design Web applications like WatchBlog all the time, means I can call you on it quite easily. [Really? Well, you called it completely wrong, since I never posed as FA STEPHENS. You are paronoid. However, if I can prove it, you would still refuse to believe it, because you would prefer to believe I am posing as FA STEPHENS.]
    • (06) Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Simply reboot your cable modem or hang up your DSL line, then reconnect. [You are desparate, and gasping for straws. You know I didn’t pose as anyone else, but you prefer to believe in paranoid conspiracy theories.]
    • (06) Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM: Pick a new troll’s name and post away! One word of caution, make sure you use the name of an actual troll that has posted before. That way, you can claim that they’re a real person because they already have a history. The best part of the whole scam is that, since they’re a troll, they’ll never stop in long enough to see that their identify has been hijacked! [Like I said, I never posed as anyone else. But, you prefer to not believe the truth. The truth is too painful. So you prefer to believe that trolls and everyone else is conspiring against you. So, if FA STEPHENS appears and proves you wrong, what are you going to say about that? Eh? Waffle some more, undoubtedly. I can hear it now. Yeah, but but but but, ya’ll are buddies ain’t ya? Ya’ll are conspiring against me, ain’t ya? Well, Charles, believe it or not, the whole world is not conspiring against you. FA STEPHENS is a real person and those are his real posts. You can’t accept it because you don’t want to admit that FA STEPHENS was right about you. And, as we can all see, you don’t take criticism well … any criticism, according to you, must be from trolls, and are all lies, and they will be met with an onslaught of name-calling as evidenced by your own statements … ]
    • (07) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: That is what is childish and foolish here. Stop making love to the straw man and move out of the glass house.
    • (08) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 5, 2006 10:12 PM: … you’re pro-illegal alien and anti-American
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:40 AM: … but you are a hypocrite. [That’s about as blatant as you can get when it comes to name calling.]
    • (09) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: … application of D.A.N. Hipocrisy
    • Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: If you’re completely stupid please let me know
    • (10) Posted by: d.a.n at May 6, 2006 04:58 PM: I apologize to the other readers for continuing to bait d.a.n. [Charles makes empty promises, but still returns for more.]
    • (11) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: I’m arguing with an infant. [Really? Why do you keep returning for more? Are you a glutton for punishment?]
    • Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 04:50 PM: since you were offended that means the accusation must be true, therefore by your own admission you are a racist. [That is a pretty blatant example of name calling too.]
    • (12) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:16 PM: … you’re not a very good artist.
    • (13) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.[Nope. It’s true and there’s no wafflin’ out of it.]
    • (14) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:04 AM: You forget that I only called you one or two names [OOpppss … see next statement. Is it one name or two names? Charles does not remember because he has hurled so many names at everyone, he’s lost count. The truth is, he has used about a dozen, as shown above and below]
    • (15) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:57 PM: I’ve only called you one name, hypocrite [Ummmm….Charles, you already said about 53 minutes ago that you called me one or two names. You ‘ve resorted to so much name calling, you don’t even remember]
    • (16) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 02:57 PM: I could do the same thing to your posts, which I’ve done up to this point only as a means of illustrating your hypocrisy. However, in spite of how low this discussion has sunk I’m still not willing to join you in unmitigated hypocrisy. [Really? Just look how low you have sunk by your very own statements, above and below.]
    • (17) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM: Don’t worry, you can engage in verbal masturbation with yourself all day long, under as many different aliases as you want, and I won’t be joining you in that orgy of hypocrisy.[Still believe in aliases and conspiracy theories, eh? You can not stand it that others here also see you for what you really are? Thus, you invent in your mind that they are trolls, and you call other people on this thread trolls.]
    • (18) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 11:29 AM: I figure the more time you spend distracted here, trying to get the last word, the less time you spend spreading your hypocrisy on other threads.[The irony is that while Charles calls other people hypocrites, and all sorts of other names, those names actually apply to himself? Just look above and below at the overwhelming evidence. See all the name calling, accusing people of being shills and trolls, telling lies that others are posing as FA STEPHENS, etc., etc., etc.]

    ______T H E___P A R A N O I A___L I S T________

    • (01) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM:
      And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?
      [Those are real people; Charles does not believe those people are real.]

    • (02) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:18 AM:
      Quite interesting and coincidental … Two trolls, almost a day apart, both cheerleading for d.a.n. in hit-and-run posts, and both referring to me as “wager dude” in lowercase. Hey d.a.n., do you keep trolls in your pocket?
      And what does it say about you when your only cheerleaders are trolls?

    • (03) Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM:
      d.a.n., So you are FA STEPHENS! I didn’t think you’d be so blatant as to risk posting under the same troll name twice! Are you hijacking the handle of the known troll, or have you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I do not recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once, and certainly not one post right after the other.

    • (04) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM:
      No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”.

    • (05) Posted By: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM:
      Oh yes, I’m quite sure he will (nudge, nudge, wink, wink ;-/ ). Make sure you wait at least a couple hours to make it look less suspicious.

    • (06) Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM:
      you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I don’t recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once

    ______ T H E ____ W A F F L E ___ L I S T _______

    • (01) Posted by Charles Wager at May 4, 2006 02:43 PM: Charles Wager first wrote: I have yet to find a reputable source that can make a solid claim as to the health danger of illegal immigrants.
      [That obviously does not make sense; since there is a health danger; both from legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and substantiated by the very article provided by Charles Wager in the third paragraph, that says “There is a grain of truth in that statement”.]

    • (02) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 05:52 PM: So it appears the immigrants, the one coming across our Southern border anyway, are catching the disease from us .
      [This is where the absurdity starts, and back-peddling from it and waffling is what follows, as demonstrated below by numerous plays on words and what Charles Wager describes as “Semantic rape”.]

    • (03) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: I also made the distinction that foreigners coming across the Southern border were catching it here.
      [This is an attempt to defend the first absurd statement with an equally absurd statement.]

    • (04) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: You may be surprised to learn that I do not disagree with your claim that foreigners bring disease.
      [That is one of a myriad of subsequent flip-flops, and in direct contrast to the previous statement that “they are catching diseases from us.” This is the beginning of the back peddling and countless contradictions; So which is it? They are, or they aren’t? ]

    • (05) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: It is not surprising that foreigners, legal or otherwise, are the bearers of disease.
      [again, that is in direct contrast to your previous statements (1,2,3) that they are catching diseases from us]

    • (06) Posted by Charles Wager at May 3, 2006 11:10 PM: Charles Wager wrote: I just have not seen conclusive proof that illegals are the only problem, or even the main problem.
      [it is a problem; the degree of the problem is debatable, and I believe the degree is serious, and there is ample evidence of it including your very own linked article which said “There is a grain of truth in that statement” which said illegal immigrants “are bringing infectious diseases with them” ; also, the article states that many previously eradicated diseases are making a strong come back]

    • (07) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 04:03 AM: Charles Wager wrote: Exactly. I will say it again … tonque-and-cheek does not mean the statement is false, just that it was said with an element of irony. Look it up.
      [Charles, perhaps you should look it up, since you are in the habit of using words that you do not even know the meaning of, as evidenced by your own admission above.]

    • (08) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 03:42 PM: Charles Wager wrote:
      The one thing I learned from this “discussion” is that you do not deal with facts. You deal with “faction”.
    • (09) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      “when I used the quotes I did not realize it [“faction”] was a real word.”

    • (10) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      I went to dictionary.com and learned it [faction] actually is a real word.
      [But Charles already said above that he did not know faction was a real word? But, he has the gall to tell other people to look up the meaning of words in a dictionary? Four or more times, Charles says: “Look it up”. Perhaps he should following his own advice?]

    • (11) Posted by Charles Wager at May 6, 2006 05:47 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      See the quotes I used around the word “faction”? That is a mechanism used to indicate to readers that I am coining a term.
      [Yeah right. You just admitted you didn’t know it was a word. Guess you forget? Eh?]

    • (12) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager then wrote:
      I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.

    • (13) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager wrote:
      … you try to avoid admitting that I was using the word [“faction”] correctly. [Charles, you already admitted you didn’t know it was even a word.]

    • (14) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: Charles Wager wrote::

    • To all rational and intelligent people, it is obvious that I did not mean to use the word “fiction”, because if that had been my intent I would not have put the word in quotes. [Uhhhhmm … you got more flip-flops than a waffle house. Every post is a new flip-flop. You already admitted (above) to not knowing that [“faction”] was a real word, then you said you meant to use the word, but you clearly meant to use the word “fiction”, so why now try to act like you meant to use that word all along, and try to convince me that you used the word correctly? That’s really very funny. Why do you now act like you were so clever in the use of a word, when you didn’t even know what it meant? Did you already forget that you already said you did not know it was a real word? Why not admit from the start that it was a typo, and you meant to say “fiction” (not faction)? Why? Because the waffling is so deeply ingrained, that you can not help yourself. Thus, you embarked on yet another round of waffling to cover your ignorance of the meaning of the word “faction”. You’ve got more waffles than and waffle hut. That’s hilarious. This is very entertaining. Please continue.]
    • (15) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:52 AM: Charles Wager wrote:I see you have taken the name-calling to a whole new level.
      Charles Wager then writes:… If you are completely stupid please let me know …
      Charles Wager wrote: And still your hypocrisy know no bounds …
      [Interesting … who is doing all the name calling ?]

    • (16) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 02:03 PM: Charles Wager wrote:I admitted to not knowing faction was a real word.
      [Wow…yet another flip-flop. First it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. Then it was a mistake. Then it was intentional. And now you finally admit that you did not know “faction” was a real word as I orignally suspected. Talk about shootin’ yourself in the foot ! ?]

    • (17) Posted by Charles Wager at May 8, 2006 05:28 PM: Charles Wager wrote:I admit d.a.n.’s version is short and cute … however it is also a lie.
      [Imagine that. Now, of all people, Charles Wager is calling me a liar too ? The propensity for name-calling almost equals the compulsive waffling. ]

    ______ T H E ___ L Y I N G ___ L I S T________

    • (01) Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM:
      d.a.n., So you are FA STEPHENS! I didn’t think you’d be so blatant as to risk posting under the same troll name twice! Are you hijacking the handle of the known troll, or have you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I do not recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once, and certainly not one post right after the other.
      [Charles Wager tells an outright lie and accuses me of posing as FA STEPHENS. He badly wants to believe that lie, because he can not accept that others see him for what he really is.]

    • (02) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM:
      No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”.
      [Still, Charles Wager persists with his lie. FA STEPHENS is a man of 78 years old. He is a real person. I never posed as FA STEPHENS. Still, Charles Wager insists that his lie is true, because the truth is too painful to face. ]

    [ … stay tuned … as the imposter and conspiracy theories abound … as Charles Wager tries to continue the lie that I posed as FA STEPHENS … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2006 2:00 PM
    Comment #146919
    No one else needs to make up lies like you did about me posing as FA STEPHENS.
    The fact that you hijacked a troll’s name to post fake “happy d.a.n.” cheerleading posts to make yourself look credible was not your downfall. The lies you told to cover it up afterward were what finally did you in. You might as well have stitched a big red “G” for guilty on the front of your garments.

    As far as I can tell, there’s nothing in the other 2500+ lines you posted that I haven’t already responded to. That won’t change, no matter how many times you cut and paste the same drivel. Repetition does not wash away hypocrisy. Or lies.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 2:32 PM
    Comment #146947

    Charles Wagers, look closely … your lists are growing as you keep telling lies about me and others.

    You mean you don’t like seeing your own statements posted? Why not, if they are not really lies about me?

    You called me many names, but that wasn’t workin’ … so you deceided to make up a lie about me ?

    Please continue to tell lies about me.

    Tell us more about your lies that I posed as FA STEPHENS, or FA STEPHENS is a troll, or how FA STEPHENS is my buddy. Please tell us more about your paranoid theories. Are you in the habit of telling lies about other people? You never did answer those questions about yourself. Are all of relationships in shambles too? Want to talk about it? Please tell us. I’ve got a pretty good idea what the problem may be.

    Or, are you simply angry because you got busted, and caught red-handed in your lies about me and other people?

    Perhaps you are used to telling lies about me and others, and bullying other posters around?

    Now you are upset that someone caught you at it?

    You can’t stand the fact that other people (FA STEPHENS and Russ M) called you on it too …

    Posted by FA STEPHENS at May 8, 2006 04:14 AM: i think that wager dude got bested about 35 posts ago
    Posted by Russ M at May 8, 2006 09:51 PM: dan, don’t waste your time with this charles wager dude. You can not fix stupid.

    Yes, please tell us how they are not real people, or shills, or me posting as them?

    Name calling wasn’t workin’ for ya, so you decided to make up a lie about me that accuses me of posting as other people.

    Yes, I want to hear more about your lie. Ummmm … ofcourse, in your mind, your lie is true.

    You then got so carried away in the lie, that you went to great lengths to all the technical aspects as to how it could be done. Interesting indeed. There were a few things there that never occurred to me. Perhaps that is because you know all about posing as others?

    Please continue, so I can add it to your list of lies about me and others.

    ___ T H E___N A M E___C A L L I N G___L I S T ____
    All the names that Charles Wager calls other people …

    • (1) anti-American,

    • (2) pro-illegal alien

    • (3) childish,

    • (4) foolish,

    • (5) hypocrite,

    • (6) stupid,

    • (7) infant,

    • (8) racist,

    • (9) liar,

    • (10) not a very good artist,

    • (11) and Charles Wager calls FA STEPHENS and Russ M trolls

    … see more above …

    ______ T H E ____ W A F F L E ___ L I S T _______

    … see more above …

    ______T H E___P A R A N O I A___L I S T________

    … see more above …

    ______ T H E ___ L Y I N G ___ L I S T________

    • (01) Posted by Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 03:43 PM:
      d.a.n., So you are FA STEPHENS! I didn’t think you’d be so blatant as to risk posting under the same troll name twice! Are you hijacking the handle of the known troll, or have you been the troll FA STEPHENS all along? I suspect the former, because I do not recall FA STEPHENS ever posting to the same thread more than once, and certainly not one post right after the other.
      [Charles Wager tells an outright lie and accuses me of posing as FA STEPHENS. He badly wants to believe that lie, because he can not accept that others see him for what he really is.]

    • (02) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 9, 2006 08:33 PM:
      No matter who you are, it doesn’t stop you from posting fake posts as a known troll like “FA STEPHENS”.
      [Still, Charles Wager persists with his lie. FA STEPHENS is a man of 78 years old. He is a real person. I never posed as FA STEPHENS. Still, Charles Wager insists that his lie is true, because the truth is too painful to face. ]

    • (02) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 02:32 PM:
      The fact that you hijacked a troll’s name to post fake “happy d.a.n.” cheerleading posts to make yourself look credible was not your downfall. The lies you told to cover it up afterward were what finally did you in. You might as well have stitched a big red “G” for guilty on the front of your garments.
      [That’s some bizarre logic, don’t ya think? Charles Wager tells a lie about me (that I am posting as FA STEPHENS), and asserts that denying the lie is somehow a cover up. Charles Wager digs that hole he’s in deeper and deeper as he insists that his lie is true. Here’s a bit of logic that Charles Wager prefers to waffle over. He can not prove his lie that I posted as FA STEPHENS anymore than I can prove that a real FA STEPHENS posted the comments (i.e. not easily without FA STEPHENS and the WatchBlog Manager’s assistance). But, despite the lack of the indisputable proof, Charles Wager accuses me of posing as FA STEPHENS, which is a blatant lie, and says quite a lot about Charles Wager.]

    [ … stay tuned … as Charles Wager digs in his heels with his lie that I am posting as FA STEPHENS … ]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2006 3:21 PM
    Comment #146961

    d.a.n.,

    …you went to great lengths to all the technical aspects as to how it could be done. Interesting indeed. There were a few things there that never occurred to me.
    I guess you’re not a very good software engineer then either, are you? [d.a.n. quickly adds that to his cute little list] Wait, that’s right—you’re just playing “dumb d.a.n.” again! You think other posters are too stupid to verify your ridiculous lies, meant to cover up your fake cheerleading posts, which in turn were a desperate attempt to boost your plummeting credibility and distract from your blatant hypocrisy.
    You mean you don’t like seeing your own statements posted?
    The tactic you are resorting to in your desperate attempt to get the last word would only bother a child. Keep ‘em coming! I mean, what a return on investment! All I have to do is post:
    As far as I can tell, there’s nothing in the other 3000+ lines you posted that I haven’t already responded to. That won’t change, no matter how many times you cut and paste the same drivel. Repetition does not wash away hypocrisy.
    And you then respond, predictably, by cutting and pasting the same repetitive drivel all over again. You did get around to looking up up that definition of insanity, didn’t you?

    Watch everyone! Let’s see how many times we can get the rat to push the lever on his Skinner box!

    Not that I actually think you have much in common with a rat, d.a.n. (but by all means add that to your list). After all, a rat will only push the lever if he gets a reward for it…

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 4:05 PM
    Comment #146979

    You’re right. THIS will be much easier from now on. Please see the new web page showing all the lies you tell about me and others.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2006 5:05 PM
    Comment #147017

    d.a.n.,

    I find that highly offensive! Seriously, if you’re going to honor me with a Web page, the least you can do is make sure it validates! How about some CSS styling, or some kind of Flash presentation… or something? Some technology out of the 21st century, perhaps? It’s like I’ve gone back in time, and I’m still browsing through the crap HTML of the mid-90’s with the first Mosaic browser!

    Seriously though, I guess you’ve proven in one fell swoop how bad you are at both art and software engineering!

    Do me a favor, will you? Put up or shut up! I encourage and DARE you to post the link to that “Web page” all over WatchBlog! Don’t hide the link either—I want you to advertise it proudly! I want everybody to see your work! Hey, I have a great idea! Use that kiddy Waffle Hut photo you spent hours drawing as a way to link to the Web page—that’ll get people’s attention!

    And more than anything… I want everyone to witness your hypocrisy, which is simply true and fully substantiated by your own words, over and over again. I want people to see for themselves why they should not waste their time on any of your posts or “facts”.

    Make sure you come back here and post links to the discussions where you advertised the page, okay? I don’t read all the threads and I would really hate to miss the response to this!

    Thanks d.a.n., seriously. Crap design or not, I am honored and humbled that you would put so much time and effort into trying to offend me. It shows that I made a difference.

    Yours truly,
    Charles Wager

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 6:51 PM
    Comment #147026

    Why are you so offended?
    It is merely your own statments?
    And you are so kind to keep providing more.
    Just the facts, and the lies you tell about me and others on this thread. Truth hurts, eh?

    Charles Wanger wrote: I am honored and humbled that you would put so much time and effort into trying to offend me.
    Trying to offend you? Why should your own words and statements offend you?

    Sorry the style and graphics weren’t the best, but you are not worth wastin’ a bunch of time on. Cutting and pasting your statements have the desired affect, don’t ya think? ; )

    The facts are all that is needed.

    So, now you say you are honored?
    Hmmmm … you seem confused?
    I thought you just said you were offended?

    Either way, good. Here it is again.

    Oh, and check back often to see updates.
    P.S., the more things you say, the longer your web page will get.

    Oh … if you want to advertise it all over, feel free. The link is: http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/CharlesWager1.htm

    Enjoy!

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2006 7:22 PM
    Comment #147033

    d.a.n.,

    Why are you so offended?
    Here’s yet another word for you to look up: “sarcasm”
    Sorry the style and graphics weren’t the best, but you are not worth wastin’ a bunch of time on
    Oh, but you did waste a bunch of time, didn’t you? And that page looks just as good as all the other pages on your site—so don’t go denying the level of artistic and technological talent you have! [hint: this is also sarcasm]
    So, now you say you are honored ? …. I thought you just said you were offended?
    Ahem. See “Sarcasm”. [yes, it’s “dumb d.a.n.” again]
    Oh … if you want to advertise it all over, feel free.
    So you won’t back up your words with action, huh? That’s the second time in a row I’ve called your bluff! Here’s one last word for you to learn: Wuss.

    By the way, don’t get caught up in definition seven; it’s the wrong definition.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 8:05 PM
    Comment #147047

    Charles Wanger,

    I am not a web-page designer or developer.
    I develop real-time SCADA systems.

    So you are a web-page developer. Good for you. Show me some of your web pages.

    It does not surprise me that you think all software developers do the same thing as you.
    Such a statement, as your many other statements, are simply small minded statements.

    Oh, but you did waste a bunch of time, didn’t you?
    Not at all … a few minutes is all it took to cut and paste your statements, and organize them for maximum effect. You did most of the work and provided all the evidence needed to reveal your character for all to see. Like you said, it’s just text and a few graphics. What’s hard about that? You already did most of the writing. The page consists mostly of things you have written. Don’t you like reading your own writing?
    So you won’t back up your words with action, huh? That’s the second time in a row I’ve called your bluff!
    Called my bluff? I did not realize I had challenged you to do anything. That statement sounds delusional again El Capitain-ish again. Get a grip, and make an appointment with your psychiatrist.

    I already gave you the link for you to post it anywhere you like? Here it is again: http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/CharlesWager1.htm

    Please, feel free to post it everywhere you like. I don’t mind at all. Go for it.

    P.S. That last post was much better. It earned you another line on your NAME CALLING LIST:

    • (24) Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 08:05 PM:
      Here’s one last word for you to learn: Wuss.

    [More name calling, eh? Charles Wanger simply can not help himself. Now his name calling is bordering on vulgar. A sure sign of someone who is desperate to win at least one minor point, but keeps getting bested time and time again.]

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2006 8:45 PM
    Comment #147076
    It does not surprise me that you think all software developers do the same thing as you.
    So you’re one of those software developers that got yourself locked into a single skill set, huh? You didn’t pick up even the most remedial Web page design skills, even though many non-programmers with FrontPage could do better? I’m sorry, I wouldn’t have teased you about it if I had known.
    Called my bluff? I did not realize I had challenged you to do anything.
    No, I challenged you. You’ve been posturing and puffing about how right you are and how wrong I am—so much so that you actually went through the effort to put a Web page together specifically to spread lies about little ol’ me. All this posturing and puffing, yet you’re scared to death that anyone will actually see the drivel you’ve been posting. It’s your Web page, yet you’re unwilling to publish it? Yet every other page on your site you’ve posted ad nauseum on literally every thread… Come on, d.a.n., stand behind your words and your work!
    More name calling, eh? Charles Wanger simply can not help himself. Now his name calling is bordering on vulgar.
    And yet d.a.n., in this very sentence, calls me a “wanger”! Talk about vulgar! Just another example of his non-stop hypocrisy; it doesn’t even surprise me anymore.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 10, 2006 10:03 PM
    Comment #147097
    And yet d.a.n., in this very sentence, calls me a “wanger”

    That was a typo.
    You are imagining things again, like when you imagined I was posing as FA STEPHENS.
    There’s no need to be so paranoid.
    Besides, as you see, lots of people are named Wanger, such as: Walter Wanger, Ralph Wanger, etc.
    See? No need to be so offended. Unless perhaps it is true?

    Challenge all you want, El Capitan.
    Your request makes no sense.
    If you want to spread it around, you can. You have the link. What are you waiting for? I don’t mind at all if you spread it all around. Please do. That’s your choice. I dare you to spread it around.

    However, I seriously doubt you really want it spread around for all to see … otherwise, you already would have a long time ago. No, I don’t think you really want people to see what you wrote.

    Like I said, if you want your web-page spread around, here’s the link . Go for it.

    That web-page does not spread lies.
    It reveals your lies that say I was posing as FA STEPHENS.
    The only lies I’ve seen are yours.
    It’s merely the truth.
    Those are your statements.
    Don’t you stand by what you wrote?
    What are you so worked up about?
    In the previous post, you said you were honored.
    Hmmmmm…..It must have struck a nerve somewhere? : )

    I suppose I too would be as embarrassed as you appear to be now, if I had sunk so low to write statments similar to yours, that:

    • tell lies about me posing as FA STEPHENS,

    • call other people a myriad of names (including racist, anti-American, hypocrite, wuss, troll, liar, foolish, childish, etc., etc., etc.), waffle all over the place.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2006 10:43 PM
    Comment #147136

    d.a.n.,

    I don’t mind at all if you spread it all around. Please do. That’s your choice. I dare you to spread it around.
    Is this really what you want, d.a.n.? Are you proud enough of your work that you would like me to share it with others?

    I think, more than anything, that this discussion has demonstrated why the “critique the message, not the messenger” policy is so critical for productive debate. However, I think that the policy does not go far enough. It’s just as destructive when the messengers don’t try to communicate—when their only goal is to win at any cost. When you start to take words out of context, and rely on semantic tricks and accusations to futher the “message”, the discussion will always go downhill quickly.

    Which one of us was right or wrong at the start of our discussion does not matter. It’s all opinion anyway. However, I do feel you misunderstood my position. I did not change my position—right or wrong—you just misunderstood it. It could be my fault that you misunderstood it, granted, but that doesn’t make me a waffler. I tried to clarify my position to you, and from that point on all you could say was “waffle, waffle”, and take my words out of context. That attitude put me on the defensive, and that attitude is what drove the discussion downhill. It’s about the attitude d.a.n., not the words.

    Quite honestly, d.a.n., and in all seriousness, I don’t think either one of us should be proud of how this discussion has decayed. In any way, shape, or form. Are you actually proud of your work on that Web page? I don’t think you should be. Are you actually proud of the conclusions you’ve drawn, and the way you’ve abused my words? Are you willing to back it up with your reputation on WatchBlog? Full disclosure—I think you have more to lose than me here. I don’t really care either way. That’s the God-honest truth. I don’t really care either way.

    You see, as I’ve said before, there’s only a certain level I’m willing to sink to. You’ve gone below that level in my eyes, yet you seem proud of it. So I’m asking, are you really? Or is it just bluffing? You’ll notice there’s no name-calling and no joking in this post. I’m being serious. That’s because, in order to keep myself above that artifical level I’m not willing to sink to…I need to give you every possible warning that I’m not bluffing myself.

    With that disclaimer, if you really want me to… I will be willing to share our discussion—and your Web page—with others on WatchBlog, when and where I feel it’s appropriate. Just say the word. Maybe someone will learn something from it. Maybe nobody will bother to look. Maybe we’ll both get banned (at least under these names and IPs) and that will be better for WatchBlog. Again, I truly don’t care. So if that’s really what you want, just say the word.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 11, 2006 1:28 AM
    Comment #147235
    Charles Wager wrote: d.a.n., Is this really what you want, d.a.n.? Are you proud enough of your work that you would like me to share it with others?
    You bet. The best thing that could happen is for you to post your own statements for all to see. Please share it.
    Charles Wager wrote: I think, more than anything, that this discussion has demonstrated why the “critique the message, not the messenger” policy is so critical for productive debate. However, I think that the policy does not go far enough. It’s just as destructive when the messengers don’t try to communicate, when their only goal is to win at any cost. “
    Yes, you are lucky no one is paying attention to this old thread, otherwise, all of your name calling and lies about me and FA STEPHENS would have been noticed. Talk about trying to win an debate at any cost? LOL. The only word I ever used was “waffler/waffling”. Big deal. You however told lies about me and FA STEPHENS. You told a lie that I was posing as FA STEPHENS, and you used all of the following names at me and others too:
    • (01) Charles Wager lies when he accuses me of posing as another poster, FA STEPHENS,
    • (02) anti-American,
    • (03) pro-illegal alien,
    • (04) childish,
    • (05) foolish,
    • (06) hypocrite,
    • (07) stupid,
    • (08) infant,
    • (09) racist,
    • (10) liar,
    • (11) not a very good artist,
    • (12) a bad artist and bad software engineer,
    • (13) full of it,
    • (14) wuss,
    • (15) and Charles Wager calls other people (FA STEPHENS and Russ M) trolls .

    Please do spread it every where you like.
    Here is the link again: home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/CharlesWager1.htm
    Go for it.

    Charles Wager wrote: When you start to take words out of context, and rely on semantic tricks and accusations to futher the “message”, the discussion will always go downhill quickly.
    Your words were not taken out of context. Anyone can look at the thread above to see the lies you told about me and FA STEPHENS, and the names you call us. Please spread the link everywhere. I hope FA STEPHENS, and Russ M, who you called trolls, see it too. Let’s see you waffle out of that and claim it is not lies and name calling.
    Charles Wager wrote: Which one of us was right or wrong at the start of our discussion does not matter.
    Sure, it matters. Waffling out of it now won’t work. Your statements are wrong, because they tell lies about me, FA STEPHENS, you called FA STEPHENS a troll, and you called other people the names listed above. Please do share that link with everyone.
    Charles Wager wrote: It’s all opinion anyway. However, I do feel you misunderstood my position. I did not change my position, right or wrong, you just misunderstood it. It could be my fault that you misunderstood it, granted, but that doesn’t make me a waffler.
    Misunderstood? That statement is another perfect example of waffling. Your lies about me and FA STEPHENS, and the long list of names (above) that you call other people were not misunderstood at all.
    Charles Wager wrote: I tried to clarify my position to you, and from that point on all you could say was “waffle, waffle”, and take my words out of context.
    Clarfiy? Ha! That statements perfectly exemplifies waffling. Nothing was taken out of context. You said what you said. Nothing was misunderstood or taken out of context.
    Charles Wager wrote: That attitude put me on the defensive, and that attitude is what drove the discussion downhill.
    Funny. The attitude you accuse others of is the very thing revealed by your statements. The attitude in your statements is all too clear, since it is you that tells lies about me and FA STEPHENS, called FA STEPHENS and Russ M trolls for agreeing with me, and called me and other people a myriad of names (listed above).
    Charles Wager wrote: Quite honestly, d.a.n., and in all seriousness, I don’t think either one of us should be proud of how this discussion has decayed.
    Charles, I am not ashamed of anything I wrote. I am not the one telling lies about others posing as others, and calling other people trolls and various other names, like you did to me, FA STEPHENS, and Russ M. That’s why you have not already posted the link I provided to you all over the place. I want you to. That will be very interesting, as others will see the lies you told about me and FA STEPHENS.
    Charles Wager wrote: Are you actually proud of the conclusions you’ve drawn, and the way you’ve abused my words?
    I have nothing to be ashamed of. Please display it for all to see, the lies you tell about me, and FA STEPHENS. It speaks for itself.

    When others draw the same conclusions as I, FA STEPHENS, and Russ M, are you going to call them trolls too ?

    Charles Wager wrote: Are you willing to back it up with your reputation on WatchBlog? Full disclosure, I think you have more to lose than me here. I don’t really care either way. That’s the God-honest truth. I don’t really care either way.
    Obviously, you must not care, which is why you tell lies about other people, like the lies you tell about me and FA STEPHENS.

    I stand 100% behind everything I said. It clearly shows how you tell lies about me and FA STEPHENS, call others trolls, and call eveyone all sorts of other names. Please share it all you like.

    Charles Wager wrote: You see, as I’ve said before, there’s only a certain level I’m willing to sink to.
    Really? Can it get any lower?
    Charles Wager wrote: You’ve gone below that level in my eyes, yet you seem proud of it.
    Really? You tell lies about me and FA STEPHENS, call him and Russ M trolls, call me all the names listed above, and then conclude I have gone below that level in your eyes? LOL
    Charles Wager wrote: So I’m asking, are you really? Or is it just bluffing?
    Whose bluffing? You have had the power all along to share it all you like. If I did not want others to see it, I would not have posted it. Please share it so all can see the lies you tell about me and FA STEPHENS, and the names you call others.
    Charles Wager wrote: You’ll notice there’s no name-calling and no joking in this post. I’m being serious.
    Good. Please make good on it. Go for it.
    Charles Wager wrote: That’s because, in order to keep myself above that artifical level I’m not willing to sink to … I need to give you every possible warning that I’m not bluffing myself.
    Gee, is that your last, last, last, last warning? Plese do it. I don’t mind at all. That will be most interesting. If you want to display the lies you tell about me and FA STEPHENS, and all the names you call other people (see above), be my guest.
    Charles Wager wrote: With that disclaimer, if you really want me to … I will be willing to share our discussion, and your Web page, with others on WatchBlog, when and where I feel it’s appropriate.
    Like I keep telling you, please do. How many warnings are you going to give me?
    Charles Wager wrote: Just say the word.
    Yes. Please do. When you do, I will add that behavoir to the web-page for all to see, like the lies you tell about me and FA STEPHENS.
    Charles Wager wrote: Maybe someone will learn something from it.
    Yes, they will learn what type of person you are. Go for it.
    Charles Wager wrote: Maybe nobody will bother to look. Maybe we’ll both get banned (at least under these names and IPs) and that will be better for WatchBlog. Again, I truly don’t care. So if that’s really what you want, just say the word.
    Yes, please do. I have not done anything to be banned. I don’t think the words “waffler” is sufficient cause. However, all of your lies about me and FA STEPHENS, and all the names you call me and others might get you banned. I’m not the one telling lies like the lies in your statements about me and FA STEPHENS. I’m not the one calling others trolls, cheerleader trolls, and a myriad of other names. In fact, as often occurs, many will probably applaud me on how patient and controlled I was in debating with you, despite the lies you told about me and FA STEPHENS, and all the name calling that you engaged in. So, what part of “Yes” and “Please do” don’t you understand ? Go for it.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at May 11, 2006 11:51 AM
    Comment #147306

    d.a.n.,

    That was an olive branch of sorts that I was offering you. I guess you don’t like olives either.

    Yes, please do. I have not done anything to be banned.
    Done. When I get the chance, I’ll also post it to a much newer thread. However, I refuse to spam WatchBlog so I have to wait for a subject where it’s not totally tangential.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 11, 2006 3:39 PM
    Comment #147348

    Charles Wager,
    If you want a truce, then I’m for it.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 11, 2006 5:47 PM
    Comment #147356

    d.a.n.,

    Charles, I am not ashamed of anything I wrote. I stand 100% behind everything I said.
    I notice you got that Web page shut down nice and quick. I fully admit that I am ashamed of some of the things I said. A truce is fine. We can end it right here and right now if you agree.

    P.S. I made a point to make a copy of the page before you took it offline. It’s not online anywhere…I just like showing it to friends. :)

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 11, 2006 6:14 PM
    Comment #147359

    Charles Wager,

    Since you don’t have the good sense to quit when you should, the web-page is back on line.

    Therefore, please show that web-page to as many people as you possibly can when ever you can.
    Here is the link again:

  • http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/CharlesWager1.htm
  • Enjoy.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 11, 2006 6:31 PM
    Comment #147372

    d.a.n.,

    Since you don’t have the good sense to quit when you should
    And here I was starting to get optimistic that you were a reasonable person underneath it all. You see, a truce requires give and take on both parts. I admitted that I am ashamed of where this discussion has gone, but if you are not willing to do the same then I see no grounds for a truce.

    You see, I am just as proud of your work on that Web page as you are. I think advertising this thread makes both of us look bad, but advertising your Web page only makes you look bad. Therefore, if you are genuinely proud of it then who am I to be ashamed?

    Therefore, please show that web-page to as many people as you possibly can when ever you can.
    As you wish. I have to admit I was a touch disappointed when you took it offline.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 11, 2006 7:35 PM
    Comment #147458

    Please do display the link everywhere possible.
    Especially, since you said above:

    Charles Wager wrote: I admitted that I am ashamed of where this discussion has gone.

    Of course, you will call all of those that disagree with you, “trolls”, just as did above dozens of times, calling FA STEPHENS and Russ M “trolls” and “cheerleading for d.a.n” for simply disagreeing with you.

    I seriously doubt you will share the web-page listing all your statements from above.

    Your dares and threats to diplay your own statements are all empty rhetoric, since you already said “I am ashamed” (above).

    If you do, I will be amazed.

    Charles Wager wrote: I have to admit I was a touch disappointed when you took it offline.

    Really? No need to be disappointed anymore, since you can now display it for all to see. All can now see the lies you told about me and FA STEPHENS, and all the names you called me and other people, for which you (above) just said “I am ashamed” ?

    But, then, you follow up by saying: “who am I to be ashamed?”.

    The incongruity in your statements defies logic.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 12, 2006 12:06 AM
    Comment #147471
    I seriously doubt you will share the web-page listing all your statements from above.
    Ahem. I already have. Twice and counting…
    If you do, I will be amazed.
    I’m sorry I haven’t posted it more yet, but I am doing this on a volunteer basis, and as a favor to you after all. If it’s not fast enough for you, by all means jump in and help. It is your work, after all.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 12, 2006 12:39 AM
    Comment #147515

    Ha!
    Keep up the good work.
    Please post it everywhere possible.

    Also, thanks for advertising my web-page.

    I am delighted for all to see what you write, which you, yourself, said “I am ashamed”.

    Don’t stop now. Please post it everywhere. That way, everyone will know that you liked it (since you said you were disappointed when it was offline), and voluntarily posted links to it, and approved of it.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 12, 2006 3:02 AM
    Comment #147520

    d.a.n.,

    Also, thanks for advertising my web-page.
    You’re welcome.I wish you wouldn’t pretend that you didn’t ask me to post it though—it’s very ungrateful.
    I am delighted for all to see what you write
    I’m delighted we can finally agree on something!
    Don’t stop now. Please post it everywhere.
    As you wish.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 12, 2006 3:14 AM
    Comment #147528

    Who’s pretending.
    Keep up the good work.
    Post away.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 12, 2006 3:38 AM
    Comment #147543

    d.a.n.,

    I take it you’re not willing to add that statement to my web page that I asked you for? I didn’t think you’d have the integrity. You shouldn’t ask me if I want to add anything, and then agree to do it, if you’re not going to follow through. Typical. Oh well, as I said I didn’t really expect you to, and you’re consistently meeting all of my lack of expectations.

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 12, 2006 5:15 AM
    Comment #147587
    Charles Wager wrote: I take it you’re not willing to add that statement to my web page that I asked you for?
    There are already several links to the original thread (i.e. where is says “see blog”, and “THE NAME CALLING LIST”, not to mention all the excerpts from that thread, etc.). What more could you want?
    Charles Wager wrote: and you’re consistently meeting all of my lack of expectations.
    Sorry Charly. Your disappointment and unhappiness means I must be doing everything just right.

    Keep up the great work. Please post this link in some more places if you can.

    Oh, and thanks for the advertising of my bio, which has a link to my web-page.
    My web-site got more hits yesterday than any previous day in the week.

    Oh, and thanks for the comments above, now impugning my integrity too. I added it to your web-page in the NAME CALLING LIST.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 12, 2006 10:35 AM
    Comment #147702
    What more could you want?
    Nothing, you’ve given me exactly what I wanted. I expected “dumb d.a.n.” to show his face once more, and pretend he just doesn’t know what I was asking for. That’s what I got, so all my dreams have been fulfilled.
    My web-site got more hits yesterday than any previous day in the week.
    That’s exactly what I wanted—for everyone see what type of person they are dealing with.
    Keep up the great work.
    As you wish.
    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 12, 2006 4:04 PM
    Comment #147711

    d.a.n.,

    I’m sorry they deleted your post on that other thread. You should use my technique, and try to make the post at least slightly relevant to the topic (otherwise, it’s called “spamming”). But it’s okay—I had already advertised the Web page (and my first post is still there) so your response was and is entirely unnecessary.

    Cheers

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 12, 2006 4:44 PM
    Comment #147816

    Post is some more, if you dare.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 12, 2006 11:52 PM
    Comment #147870

    Here … this will make it easier: http://CharlesWager.com

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 13, 2006 11:14 AM
    Comment #147984

    d.a.n.,

    Now you’re spending money on me! That’s precious! I’ve been a little busy the last day or so, but I’ll try to make time to do some more postings now…post haste!

    Posted by: Charles Wager at May 13, 2006 7:42 PM
    Comment #148022

    ; )

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 13, 2006 11:33 PM
    Comment #223311

    Amateurs

    Posted by: jajajdlsajklsa at June 16, 2007 9:10 PM
    Post a comment